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

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

1. That the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings

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

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

1. That the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings

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

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

1. That the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings

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

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

1. That the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS credit of 10,16,475/-. It should be noted that the receipt from appellant\nis only Rs.2.57 cr whereas that from Balaji Studies Consultants Pvt Ltd\n64,81,750/- Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) is Rs.2,45,27,904/- and\nICE India 2,03,42,000/-.Apparently all are related to Exams and Students. This\ncan be assumed

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

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 CORE METAL KRAFTS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars relating to the following: 1) Bonus and exgratia remaining unpaid by the prescribed dated as per section 43B of the Act =Rs.4,79,986/- (2,31,778+2,48,208) 2) Interest on TDS

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 16528 VISHNU COLONY, RALIWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

TDS liability on behalf of trust and amount of Rs. 4,42,520/- is outstanding against his name as it was paid to him in advance. Further, there is also a reference to various entries such as: Entry standings in the Balance Sheet as white amount: 1) Abhinav Gupta 17250/- 2) Arun Gupta 226056/- 3) Rama Gupta 675322/- 4) Subash

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 1652 8 VISHNU COLONY, RAILWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

TDS liability on behalf of trust and amount of Rs. 4,42,520/- is outstanding against his name as it was paid to him in advance. Further, there is also a reference to various entries such as: Entry standings in the Balance Sheet as white amount: 1) Abhinav Gupta 17250/- 2) Arun Gupta 226056/- 3) Rama Gupta 675322/- 4) Subash

M/S STEEL STRIPS INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 732 /Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s Steel Strips Ltd. बनाम The Asst. CIT Central Circle-II Chandigarh SCO 49-50, Sector 26, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACCS5077J प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A, Ms. Muska Garg, C.A राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hea

Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has since sustained the order passed by the AO on this issue by stating in impugned order as under: 7. Against the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed

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)

C)(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 & 2014- 15, respectively. Since, the issues raised in grounds of appeal for both the impugned AYs are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 2. For the sake

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)

C)(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 & 2014- 15, respectively. Since, the issues raised in grounds of appeal for both the impugned AYs are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 2. For the sake

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) reviewed the case of M/s Apex Builders, who had filed an appeal against the assessment made by the AO for the Assessment Year 2012– 13. The firm had originally