SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not to be levied. In response the assessee submitted as under: "1. That as regards addition of Rs.81,072/- on account of interest on FDR it is submitted that the assessee has already stated in assessment proceedings that it could not disclose the same as it has not received Form 16Afrom

SH. NITIN CHAUHAN ,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiassessment Year: 2008-09 Sh. Nitin Chauhan Vs. The Ito C/O Parikshit Aggarwal, Ward Chartered Accountant Nahan, Himachal Pradesh H.No. 1238, Sector-22B Chandigarh Pan No. Aeapc5728F

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer while initiating the penalty proceeding was not sure as to whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He drew my attention towards the assessment order dt. 11/03/2015 wherein

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

271(1)(c) was invalid as the Assessing Officer had not specifically mentioned the limb under which the penalty was proposed to be imposed, namely concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It was argued that the notice was vague and mechanical and, therefore, the entire penalty proceedings were vitiated. Reliance was placed on the decisions

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum assessment where under deduction under Section 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum assessment where under deduction under Section 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum assessment where under deduction under Section 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum assessment where under deduction under Section 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under

M/S HERITAGE MARKETING,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-3(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Heritage Marketing Vs. The Ito Sco-64, F.F., Sector-20-C Ward-3(2), Dakshin Marg, Chandigarh Chandigarh

TDS with certain parties. The AO made addition of the said gross receipt of Rs. 3,13,542/- holding that the assessee had failed to explain the said difference. Penalty proceedings under section 271

MR. SURINDER PAL SINGH,BALTANA vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh

section 271(1)(c) challenged in ITA No. 250/Chd/2018 submitted that for the contract receipts of Rs. 1,06,50,417/-, TDS

MR. SURINDER PAL SINGH,BALTANA vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh

section 271(1)(c) challenged in ITA No. 250/Chd/2018 submitted that for the contract receipts of Rs. 1,06,50,417/-, TDS

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

TDS made under different 13 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.1592/ चंडीगढ़/2018(िन.व.2014-15) ITA NO.253/Chd./2026 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1592/Chd./2018 (A.Y.2014-15) provision in respect of reimbursements of salary. Consequently, ground no. 8 & 9 of the appeal are allowed. 21. In ground no. 10 of appeal, the assessee has raised an alternate plea

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

TDS made under different 13 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.1592/ चंडीगढ़/2018(िन.व.2014-15) ITA NO.253/Chd./2026 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1592/Chd./2018 (A.Y.2014-15) provision in respect of reimbursements of salary. Consequently, ground no. 8 & 9 of the appeal are allowed. 21. In ground no. 10 of appeal, the assessee has raised an alternate plea

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS was necessary due to their exemption status, but failed to produce any certificate to that effect. Based on CBDT Circular No. 10/DV/2013, which clarified that even paid amounts fall under the purview of section 40(a)(ia), the AO disallowed the entire amount of Rs . 2,24,305 under the said section. 4.2 Further, the AO noted multiple instances

SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

TDS on the interest payment made to Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. May be, the addition is made at the assessment stage, would not automatically lead to the conclusion that assessee is liable for levy of the penalty under section 271