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)

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. Return

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)

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. Return

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.

234C have been wrongly charged.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and during the financial year relevant to the impugned Assessment Year the assessee has booked certain units in M/s Omaxe Ltd. Novelty Mall, Amritsar. The assessee has made payment of 95% of the basic sale price at the time

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.

234C have been wrongly charged.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and during the financial year relevant to the impugned Assessment Year the assessee has booked certain units in M/s Omaxe Ltd. Novelty Mall, Amritsar. The assessee has made payment of 95% of the basic sale price at the time

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.

234C have been wrongly charged.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and during the financial year relevant to the impugned Assessment Year the assessee has booked certain units in M/s Omaxe Ltd. Novelty Mall, Amritsar. The assessee has made payment of 95% of the basic sale price at the time

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.

234C have been wrongly charged.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and during the financial year relevant to the impugned Assessment Year the assessee has booked certain units in M/s Omaxe Ltd. Novelty Mall, Amritsar. The assessee has made payment of 95% of the basic sale price at the time

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.

234C have been wrongly charged.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and during the financial year relevant to the impugned Assessment Year the assessee has booked certain units in M/s Omaxe Ltd. Novelty Mall, Amritsar. The assessee has made payment of 95% of the basic sale price at the time

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.

234C have been wrongly charged.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident and during the financial year relevant to the impugned Assessment Year the assessee has booked certain units in M/s Omaxe Ltd. Novelty Mall, Amritsar. The assessee has made payment of 95% of the basic sale price at the time

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

234C of the Income Tax Act, as applicable. The calculation sheet is enclosed as the part of the assessment order. 13.2 Basis above assessment order dt. 24/03/2023 under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, the Ld. AR vehemently contended that assessee has gone through the rigours of the proceedings under section

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