CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

TDS was deducted; no discrepancy was shown. f. On capital gains, AO adopted a legally tenable view consistent with section 50. 8 g. On fixed asset additions, the issue was never part of scrutiny; PCIT travelled beyond his jurisdiction. 5.1. The Ld. PCIT in the order in para 5.2 had mentioned with respect to other expensesmentioned as under: Further, during

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS. Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 157/Chd/2013 for the A.Y. 2008-09: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment framed u/s 153C read with section 143(3) by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ill, Ludhiana is against law and facts

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS. Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 157/Chd/2013 for the A.Y. 2008-09: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment framed u/s 153C read with section 143(3) by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ill, Ludhiana is against law and facts

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS. Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 157/Chd/2013 for the A.Y. 2008-09: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment framed u/s 153C read with section 143(3) by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ill, Ludhiana is against law and facts

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (Page

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (Page

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (Page

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (Page

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (Page

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (Page

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (Page

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 :

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the departmental appeal on this issue has also no merit. The same is accordingly, dismissed.” 8. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and stated that since the ITAT Chandigarh Bench had upheld the disallowance on identical issue in the case of assessee

M/S BRONZE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Bronze Logistics P.Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 863 Industrial Area-A, Circle Vii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan No. : Aabcb9505H

TDS on re-imbursement of clearing and forwarding expenses. (n) in making an addition of Rs. 2,212/- on account of previous year's expenses. 2. The ld. AR inviting attention to the grounds raised submitted that in the facts of the present case, the assessee is assailing the correctness of the order of the CIT(A) wherein primarily

INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, KARNAL

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L. Negi

TDS on Contractor ; Rs. 13,90,000/-' : Rs.28.60.000/- Alongwith this, the assessee had submitted 3 bills of the above parties. From perusal of the bills, the following discrepancies are noted :- i) The bill from Mayank Gupta, Builders & Contractors, 9- TAGARE PARK, Delhi, is for Rs.13.90 Lacs on account of repair of Building, Raising: Partition Walls, plastering, repair of bathroom/kitchen

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

277/-; that fresh evidences in her case were of Rs.2,76,49,139/-. Payment of Rs.4,12,67,415/- was credited. However, there was “nil” balance as on 31.03.2015. These details have been filed at APB-34, in Form No. 3CD, issued by the auditor, as per the requirements of the provisions of Section 44AB

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

277/-; that fresh evidences in her case were of Rs.2,76,49,139/-. Payment of Rs.4,12,67,415/- was credited. However, there was “nil” balance as on 31.03.2015. These details have been filed at APB-34, in Form No. 3CD, issued by the auditor, as per the requirements of the provisions of Section 44AB

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

277/-; that fresh evidences in her case were of Rs.2,76,49,139/-. Payment of Rs.4,12,67,415/- was credited. However, there was “nil” balance as on 31.03.2015. These details have been filed at APB-34, in Form No. 3CD, issued by the auditor, as per the requirements of the provisions of Section 44AB

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search