DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

TDS ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

TDS ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

TDS ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

250 of the Act by relying on the Remand Report from the Ld. AO and submissions of the Assessee have not been considered in the impugned order. 5. That the impugned Order had been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 6. That the Appellant craves

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 200A wherein he had imposing late fees u/s 234E on account of late filing of TDS statement even when there existed reasonable and bonafide cause which

YOGESH CHANDER & SONS HUF,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), LUDHIANA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the CPC holding that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions of the proviso to Rule 37BA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, namely (i) filing of declaration with the deductor, and (ii) reporting of tax deduction by the deductor in the name of the other person.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. Additional / JCIT Appeal-2 Noida, has wrongly upheld the variation made while processing the return for not allowing the credit of TDS

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS, claiming exemption based on verbal assurances but failed to produce Form 26A or any supporting documentary evidence. 6 8.1 The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance relying on CBDT Circular No. 10/DV/2013 and the decision in CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate (2013) 33 taxmann.com 250 (Cal), which held that Section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SALUJA MOTORS PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

TDS as per Form 26AS available with him and the party and section-wise details given by the appellant and the same if found correct is directed to be deleted. 6.4 Hence, the Ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.” 8. A perusal of the above finding would reveal that firstly CIT(A) was satisfied that

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as the same has been passed ignoring the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016, which overrides the provisions of the other laws for the time being in force

SHRISHTI TECHNOLOGIES,BADDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS for expenses under Head Rent Godown u/s 1941 of the Act. Yours faithfully, Additional / Joint I Deputy I Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi.” A.Y. 2018-19 3 3. A perusal of the above order would reveal that AO after verification of the record accepted the calculations made by the assessee. However

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

250 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063489078 (1) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. (a) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the addition

KAMLA RETAIL LTD., NOW KNOWN AS M/S ETHOS LTD.,,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, R-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavm/S. Kamla Retail Ltd. Additional Cit, Range-1, बनाम Now Known As Ethos Limited, Chadigarh. Sco-88-89, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadck2345N

Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 30,45,000/- as prior period expenses without considering the fact the expense was paid at a later date due to pending negotiation

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesseee Is Aggrieved By The Common Order Bearing Number Itba/Apl/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) Dt. 25/11/2019 Of Cit(A) Shimla, H.P. Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. 2. At The Outset The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Above Appeals Are Barred By Limitation By 02 Days.

section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of convenience and ease) before this Tribunal. The assesseee is aggrieved by the common order bearing number ITBA/APL/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) dt. 25/11/2019 of CIT(A) Shimla, H.P. passed u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\nallowed

TDS)\nSolan\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Sachin Doger, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing :\n16/01/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 27/02/2025\nPER PARESH M. JOSHI, J.M.:\nआदेश/Order\nThis is an appeal filed by the Assessee under section

GEETA CHATRATH,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

250 r.w.s.251 of the Act without considering the merits of the appeal filed. 4. In the end, the present appeal is treated as dismissed.” 4. Apropos the delay before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the CPC had sent intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, wherein, credit of TDS