DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

249 ITR 533, Bombay High Court ii. CIT Vs. Fr. Mullers Chartiable Institutions (2014) 363 ITR 230, Karnataka High Court iii. The above said view is further fortified by the Circular No.387, dated 6th of July, 1999, in which,it has been held as under:- Therefore, under such circumstances, taxing of entire surplus as per income and expenditure account

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

249 ITR 533, Bombay High Court ii. CIT Vs. Fr. Mullers Chartiable Institutions (2014) 363 ITR 230, Karnataka High Court iii. The above said view is further fortified by the Circular No.387, dated 6th of July, 1999, in which,it has been held as under:- Therefore, under such circumstances, taxing of entire surplus as per income and expenditure account

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

249 ITR 533, Bombay High Court ii. CIT Vs. Fr. Mullers Chartiable Institutions (2014) 363 ITR 230, Karnataka High Court iii. The above said view is further fortified by the Circular No.387, dated 6th of July, 1999, in which,it has been held as under:- Therefore, under such circumstances, taxing of entire surplus as per income and expenditure account

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

249 ITR 533, Bombay High Court ii. CIT Vs. Fr. Mullers Chartiable Institutions (2014) 363 ITR 230, Karnataka High Court iii. The above said view is further fortified by the Circular No.387, dated 6th of July, 1999, in which,it has been held as under:- Therefore, under such circumstances, taxing of entire surplus as per income and expenditure account

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

249 ITR 533, Bombay High Court ii. CIT Vs. Fr. Mullers Chartiable Institutions (2014) 363 ITR 230, Karnataka High Court iii. The above said view is further fortified by the Circular No.387, dated 6th of July, 1999, in which,it has been held as under:- Therefore, under such circumstances, taxing of entire surplus as per income and expenditure account

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

249 ITR 533, Bombay High Court ii. CIT Vs. Fr. Mullers Chartiable Institutions (2014) 363 ITR 230, Karnataka High Court iii. The above said view is further fortified by the Circular No.387, dated 6th of July, 1999, in which,it has been held as under:- Therefore, under such circumstances, taxing of entire surplus as per income and expenditure account

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman

ALLAHABAD BANK NOW INDIAN BANK,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS CIRCLE), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

section 201, 201A of I.T Act, Though totally ignoring the fact that the appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause to file appeal within time. Thus the appellant order passed by CIT (Appeals) is totally wrong, illegal and unjustified. 3. That the various case laws relied upon by Ld. CIT (Appeals) are not applicable as facts of the cases

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

249 1,97,56,418 6.15 2009-10 10,98,58,236 2,15,66,221 19.63 2010-11 24,52,79,523 3,26,20,633 13.29 4.27 2011-12 55,09,66,869 2,35,27,313 Considering the fall in GP for the year i.e. 4.27%, AO required the assessee to furnish the details of work executed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

249 1,97,56,418 6.15 2009-10 10,98,58,236 2,15,66,221 19.63 2010-11 24,52,79,523 3,26,20,633 13.29 4.27 2011-12 55,09,66,869 2,35,27,313 Considering the fall in GP for the year i.e. 4.27%, AO required the assessee to furnish the details of work executed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

249 1,97,56,418 6.15 2009-10 10,98,58,236 2,15,66,221 19.63 2010-11 24,52,79,523 3,26,20,633 13.29 4.27 2011-12 55,09,66,869 2,35,27,313 Considering the fall in GP for the year i.e. 4.27%, AO required the assessee to furnish the details of work executed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

249 1,97,56,418 6.15 2009-10 10,98,58,236 2,15,66,221 19.63 2010-11 24,52,79,523 3,26,20,633 13.29 4.27 2011-12 55,09,66,869 2,35,27,313 Considering the fall in GP for the year i.e. 4.27%, AO required the assessee to furnish the details of work executed

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

249 1,97,56,418 6.15 2009-10 10,98,58,236 2,15,66,221 19.63 2010-11 24,52,79,523 3,26,20,633 13.29 4.27 2011-12 55,09,66,869 2,35,27,313 Considering the fall in GP for the year i.e. 4.27%, AO required the assessee to furnish the details of work executed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

249 1,97,56,418 6.15 2009-10 10,98,58,236 2,15,66,221 19.63 2010-11 24,52,79,523 3,26,20,633 13.29 4.27 2011-12 55,09,66,869 2,35,27,313 Considering the fall in GP for the year i.e. 4.27%, AO required the assessee to furnish the details of work executed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

249 1,97,56,418 6.15 2009-10 10,98,58,236 2,15,66,221 19.63 2010-11 24,52,79,523 3,26,20,633 13.29 4.27 2011-12 55,09,66,869 2,35,27,313 Considering the fall in GP for the year i.e. 4.27%, AO required the assessee to furnish the details of work executed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

249 1,97,56,418 6.15 2009-10 10,98,58,236 2,15,66,221 19.63 2010-11 24,52,79,523 3,26,20,633 13.29 4.27 2011-12 55,09,66,869 2,35,27,313 Considering the fall in GP for the year i.e. 4.27%, AO required the assessee to furnish the details of work executed