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)

6 of the Act, are subject to the provisions of Section 195. As per the AO, Section 5 deals with the total income of a non-resident and Section 9(1) concerns income deemed to accrue or arise in India, the provisions of Section 195 are to be read in consonance with these two provisions. The AO holds that since

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)

6 of the Act, are subject to the provisions of Section 195. As per the AO, Section 5 deals with the total income of a non-resident and Section 9(1) concerns income deemed to accrue or arise in India, the provisions of Section 195 are to be read in consonance with these two provisions. The AO holds that since

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)

6 of the Act, are subject to the provisions of Section 195. As per the AO, Section 5 deals with the total income of a non-resident and Section 9(1) concerns income deemed to accrue or arise in India, the provisions of Section 195 are to be read in consonance with these two provisions. The AO holds that since

VARDHMAN POLYTEX LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT(TDS), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. Though Notices Were Issued Electronically Through The E-Filing Portal, The Assessee Contended That Such Notices Were Neither Brought To Their Knowledge Nor Received Through Any Alternative Means Such As Email Or Physical Intimation. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte. It Was Further Submitted That The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is Legal In Nature & Does Not Require Examination Of Disputed Facts; Hence, The Matter May Be Adjudicated On Merits Without The Necessity Of A Remand To The Lower Authorities.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961for the Assessment year 2015-16. 2. The primary grievance of the assessee is against the confirmation of the demand of Rs.15,90,081/- raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, arising out of alleged non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C(6) in respect of freight payments

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

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

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

250(6) of the Act. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely reproduced the findings of the Assessing Officer and the submissions of the assessee without recording independent findings or giving proper reasons for confirming the additions. It was contended that the first appellate authority is required to pass a speaking order stating the points for determination

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 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

M/S V.K. SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

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

6, Panchkula Haryana-134109 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAHFV7228E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vineet Krishan, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/02/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This

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

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereinafter referred to as the “ impugned order”. The assessee was in first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against assessment order dt. 30/03/2013 which was passed by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab which order is hereinafter referred to as “AO’s order”. Factual Matrix Return declaring

THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATIALA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereinafter referred to as the “ impugned order”. The assessee was in first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against assessment order dt. 30/03/2013 which was passed by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab which order is hereinafter referred to as “AO’s order”. Factual Matrix Return declaring

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

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)

250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi is against law andfuels on thefile in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in passing the appellateorder without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant Company either video conferencing or any other means as prescribed

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)

250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi is against law andfuels on thefile in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in passing the appellateorder without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant Company either video conferencing or any other means as prescribed