SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

4. The only point to be considered is whether the valuation rendered by the DVO\nis to be taken into account or not. It has been argued by the learned counsel for\nthe revenue that the assessing officer was justified in referring the matter to the\nDVO for an opinion with regard to the fair market value of the property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

250 solely on the basis of and following decisions of the Hon’ble ITAT in previous Assessment Years 2011-12, AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 as they were related to proceedings undertaken u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that further appeal of the Department is still pending before

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)

4 5.1 The AO was of the opinion that these payments were subject to TDS under Section 195 of the Act. Since no TDS had been deducted, the AO disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual

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)

4 5.1 The AO was of the opinion that these payments were subject to TDS under Section 195 of the Act. Since no TDS had been deducted, the AO disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual

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)

4 5.1 The AO was of the opinion that these payments were subject to TDS under Section 195 of the Act. Since no TDS had been deducted, the AO disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual

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)

4 5.1 The AO was of the opinion that these payments were subject to TDS under Section 195 of the Act. Since no TDS had been deducted, the AO disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual

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

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

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

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

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 at Rs. 308750/- on the dividend income shown

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

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 40(a)(ia) applies to amounts “paid” as well

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

4,80,19,457/-. Even in the Remand Report the AO states the receipts submitted are as per receipts declared in the Profit & Loss A/c of the Return of Income filed. However, the AO has expressed reservation in giving credit for such TDS on the ground that party-wise details of such and ledgers of the same have not been

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

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 Ltd. 5.7% 11 Advik Laboratories