TIRUPATI ENGINEERS AND CONTRUCTIONS,SANGRUR vs. ITO, SANGRUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) submitted that during appellate proceedings, several notices under Section 250 were issued but the assessee failed to file any written submissions or attend hearings. Considering repeated non-compliance, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Relying on judicial precedents, it was observed that an appeal requires active prosecution and mere filing is insufficient. As the assessee provided no evidence or arguments in sup

3) read with section 147 on 30.12.2019 by the AO, who determined total income at Rs.4,19,615. The AO concluded that the firm had provided accommodation entries to S.P. Singla Construction group and assessed the amount as commission income, further disallowing salary and interest to partners. 3.1 The AO held that the assessee did not carry on genuine business

ADITI GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. DDIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

234B and 234C of the Act. 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed the original return of income declared total income of Rs. 23,84,150/- and determined tax liability of Rs. 4,70,719/- and taking into consideration the credit for TDS amounting to Rs 5,73,000/-, refund

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

234B, and 234C was also charged. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order held as under: 5.1. The facts relevant for the present appeal: 5.1.1. The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of steel products

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

234B, and 234C was also charged. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order held as under: 5.1. The facts relevant for the present appeal: 5.1.1. The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of steel products

SUKHDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tаx (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on fact in sustaining the view taken by learned Assessing Officer of making addition by invoking section 56(2)(viii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act and 145A(b) of the Act to sustain the impugned addition. 4. That even otherwise

AMRIK SINGH BHULLAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

section 154(8) but the order was passed on 09-11-2018 i.e. after expiry of 6 months.” 2. By the remaining grounds, the assessee assails the issue on merits. 3. At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee. None was present in support thereof. However, considering the record, the ld. Sr.DR addressing

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

3) on Bank Account Numbers 1339000500011991 & 1339000100012112 was also unauthorized, illegal and bad in law and it was also wrongly served. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AO in making addition/disallowance to the extent

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

3) on Bank Account Numbers 1339000500011991 & 1339000100012112 was also unauthorized, illegal and bad in law and it was also wrongly served. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AO in making addition/disallowance to the extent

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

3) on Bank Account Numbers 1339000500011991 & 1339000100012112 was also unauthorized, illegal and bad in law and it was also wrongly served. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AO in making addition/disallowance to the extent

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

3) on Bank Account Numbers 1339000500011991 & 1339000100012112 was also unauthorized, illegal and bad in law and it was also wrongly served. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AO in making addition/disallowance to the extent

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

3) on Bank Account Numbers 1339000500011991 & 1339000100012112 was also unauthorized, illegal and bad in law and it was also wrongly served. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AO in making addition/disallowance to the extent

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

3) on Bank Account Numbers 1339000500011991 & 1339000100012112 was also unauthorized, illegal and bad in law and it was also wrongly served. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AO in making addition/disallowance to the extent

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

3 Celebrity Biopharma Ltd. -10.0% 4 Colinz Laboratories Ltd. -0.3% 5 Syschcm (India) Ltd. -0.2% 6 Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 0.3% 7 Laboratories Ltd. 2.1% 8 Elysium Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2.3% 9 Resonance Specialties Ltd. 2.5% ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2015-16 Page 56 of 120 10 Triochem Products

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,NABHA vs. DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

3 Celebrity Biopharma Ltd. -10.0% 4 Colinz Laboratories Ltd. -0.3% 5 Syschcm (India) Ltd. -0.2% 6 Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 0.3% 7 Laboratories Ltd. 2.1% 8 Elysium Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2.3% 9 Resonance Specialties Ltd. 2.5% ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2015-16 Page 56 of 120 10 Triochem Products

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

3 Celebrity Biopharma Ltd. -10.0% 4 Colinz Laboratories Ltd. -0.3% 5 Syschcm (India) Ltd. -0.2% 6 Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 0.3% 7 Laboratories Ltd. 2.1% 8 Elysium Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2.3% 9 Resonance Specialties Ltd. 2.5% ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2015-16 Page 56 of 120 10 Triochem Products

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

3 Celebrity Biopharma Ltd. -10.0% 4 Colinz Laboratories Ltd. -0.3% 5 Syschcm (India) Ltd. -0.2% 6 Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 0.3% 7 Laboratories Ltd. 2.1% 8 Elysium Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2.3% 9 Resonance Specialties Ltd. 2.5% ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2015-16 Page 56 of 120 10 Triochem Products

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

3 Celebrity Biopharma Ltd. -10.0% 4 Colinz Laboratories Ltd. -0.3% 5 Syschcm (India) Ltd. -0.2% 6 Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 0.3% 7 Laboratories Ltd. 2.1% 8 Elysium Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2.3% 9 Resonance Specialties Ltd. 2.5% ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2015-16 Page 56 of 120 10 Triochem Products

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

3 Celebrity Biopharma Ltd. -10.0% 4 Colinz Laboratories Ltd. -0.3% 5 Syschcm (India) Ltd. -0.2% 6 Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 0.3% 7 Laboratories Ltd. 2.1% 8 Elysium Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2.3% 9 Resonance Specialties Ltd. 2.5% ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2015-16 Page 56 of 120 10 Triochem Products