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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is aggrieved by the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, bearing order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2022 dt. 27/03/2023 which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. The impugned order has revised the AO’s order no. ITBA/AST/S/143(3) 2020-21/1027309634(1) dt. 12/06/2020 which is hereinafter referred

SUKHDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

253 of the Income-tax Act, the appeal was required to be filed within sixty days from the date of service of the impugned order. However, due to the unfortunate circumstances explained by the assessee namely that his Chartered Accountant, Late Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain, was suffering from cancer during the relevant period and subsequently expired on 03.05.2024, and further

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs. 2435095/- on payment of interest of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- under section 194A. Further scrutiny of the case records revealed that as per profit & loss account, total expenditure was Rs. 1,40,14,722/- (expenditure on interest was only 11053024) against expenditure of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- on interest alone. This expenditure

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Revenue is aggrieved by the order no. ITBA/FAC/250/2022- 23/1044150537(1) dt. 22/07/2022 of the Ld. CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Revenue is time barred

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

253 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The\nAssessee is aggrieved by the order bearing number\nITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023-24/1063260786(1) dated 23/03/2024 passed\nby the Ld. PCIT under Section 263 of the Act which is hereinafter\nreferred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y. is 2015-16 and\nthe corresponding previous year period is from

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. The Appellant was a partnership firm engaged as commission agent of food grains. The Appellant sells the agricultural produce to the Government Agencies and Trade Associations as a commission agent and receives

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS u/s 195 of the Act and therefore provisions of section 40(a)(i) are attracted. Appellant has also submitted that the entire disallowance is not called for in terms of CBDT circular no 2/2014 and 3/2015. I have perused these circulars and it is seen that these circulars have been followed by the assessing officer

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

253/- claimed by the assessee. AO has observed during the assessment proceedings that "the main source of income of the company was interest from FDRs with State Bank of Patiala & HDFC Bank and lease rent from Indian Oil Corporation...no actual business activity has been carried out during the year under consideration by the assessee. This is no way means

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

253/- claimed by the assessee. AO has observed during the assessment proceedings that "the main source of income of the company was interest from FDRs with State Bank of Patiala & HDFC Bank and lease rent from Indian Oil Corporation...no actual business activity has been carried out during the year under consideration by the assessee. This is no way means

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

253/- claimed by the assessee. AO has observed during the assessment proceedings that "the main source of income of the company was interest from FDRs with State Bank of Patiala & HDFC Bank and lease rent from Indian Oil Corporation...no actual business activity has been carried out during the year under consideration by the assessee. This is no way means

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

253/- claimed by the assessee. AO has observed during the assessment proceedings that "the main source of income of the company was interest from FDRs with State Bank of Patiala & HDFC Bank and lease rent from Indian Oil Corporation...no actual business activity has been carried out during the year under consideration by the assessee. This is no way means

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act." 8.1 Furthermore we may point out that

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act." 8.1 Furthermore we may point out that

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act." 8.1 Furthermore we may point out that

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act." 8.1 Furthermore we may point out that

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act." 8.1 Furthermore we may point out that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings