HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

288(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 along with a certificate from the chartered\naccountant that the above conditions are satisfied.\"\nThis notification further recognizes that the appellant is a statutory authority\nengaged in administering welfare schemes for the benefit of building and\nconstruction workers, and that its receipts and application of funds are\nbasically linked to the discharge

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

288(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 along with a certificate from the chartered\naccountant that the above conditions are satisfied.\"\nThis notification further recognizes that the appellant is a statutory authority\nengaged in administering welfare schemes for the benefit of building and\nconstruction workers, and that its receipts and application of funds are\nbasically linked to the discharge

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

288(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 along with a certificate from the chartered\naccountant that the above conditions are satisfied.”\n\nThis notification further recognizes that the appellant is a statutory authority\nengaged in administering welfare schemes for the benefit of building and\nconstruction workers, and that its receipts and application of funds are\nbasically linked

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

288(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 along with a certificate from the chartered\naccountant that the above conditions are satisfied.”\n\nThis notification further recognizes that the appellant is a statutory authority\nengaged in administering welfare schemes for the benefit of building and\nconstruction workers, and that its receipts and application of funds are\nbasically linked

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

288 34 Ganga Constructions AAGFG1512M 41,19,600 35 Maaa Bhagwati enterprises AAMFM0246L 58,20,821 Omkar Engineers and 36 Contractors AABFD6378E 42,83,134 Gupta Constructions and 37 Engineers AAGFG1480L 40,00,000 Himland Construction and 38 Engineers AAEFH6688K 40,45,000 Himalayan Construction and 39 Engineers AADFH9910K 40,18,435 TOTAL 36,10,58,438 ITA 514/CHD/2023

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)

TDS deducted, date of bills, details of cheques issued, etc., in such a case, he could not be held responsible for parties not appearing in person and, thus, impugned addition made under section 69C deserved to be deleted. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. (P.) Ltd [2019] 104 taxmann.com 402 (Bombay) (vii) Where sales supported

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)

TDS deducted, date of bills, details of cheques issued, etc., in such a case, he could not be held responsible for parties not appearing in person and, thus, impugned addition made under section 69C deserved to be deleted. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. (P.) Ltd [2019] 104 taxmann.com 402 (Bombay) (vii) Where sales supported

SWATI INDUSTRIES D-74, PHASE-V FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA , PUNJAB

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the department are dismissed and that of assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 216/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Swati Industries D-74, Phase-V, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab-141010 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870M अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 547/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870

288/- on account of unexplained cash receipts as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was rightly justified in deleting addition of Rs. 4,65,765/ on account of disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. 5. Whether upon

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SWATI INDUSTRIES, PUNJAB

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the department are dismissed and that of assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 216/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Swati Industries D-74, Phase-V, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab-141010 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870M प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent अपीलार्थी/Appellant आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 547/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS5870

288/- on account of unexplained cash receipts as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was rightly justified in deleting addition of Rs. 4,65,765/ on account of disallowance of commission expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. 5. Whether upon

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

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

288 (Allahabad).\n8.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad (HC) in the case of PCIT vs. Siddarth\nGupta as reported in [2023] 147 taxmann.com 305 (Allahabad).\n9.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad (HC) in the case of PCIT vs. Subodh\nAggarwal as reported in [2023] 149 taxmann.com 373 (Allahabad).\n10.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench 'F', Mumbai

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

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

288 (Allahabad).\n8.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad (HC) in the case of PCIT vs. Siddarth\nGupta as reported in [2023] 147 taxmann.com 305 (Allahabad).\n9.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad (HC) in the case of PCIT vs. Subodh\nAggarwal as reported in [2023] 149 taxmann.com 373 (Allahabad).\n10.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench 'F', Mumbai

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

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

288 (Allahabad).\n8.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad (HC) in the case of PCIT vs. Siddarth\nGupta as reported in [2023] 147 taxmann.com 305 (Allahabad).\n9.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad (HC) in the case of PCIT vs. Subodh\nAggarwal as reported in [2023] 149 taxmann.com 373 (Allahabad).\n10.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench 'F', Mumbai

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

288 (Allahabad).\n8.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad (HC) in the case of PCIT vs. Siddarth\nGupta as reported in [2023] 147 taxmann.com 305 (Allahabad).\n9.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad (HC) in the case of PCIT vs. Subodh\nAggarwal as reported in [2023] 149 taxmann.com 373 (Allahabad).\n10.\nJudgement of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench 'F', Mumbai

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)

section 133(6), as well as the fact that the suppliers had reported the sales in their statutory records including GST returns. According to the Revenue, the discrepancy between the sales reported by the suppliers and the purchases recorded by the assessee clearly indicates that the assessee had incurred expenditure outside the books of account

OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRE CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

section 148B read with CBDT issued the manual of office procedure in February 2003, the assessment is vitiated and liable to be annulled. 4. That even the approval as sought by the assessing officer of the order u/s 143(3) from the Addl. CIT is non est / bad in law and the granting of the approval of the order

MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, VILLAGE MANSOORWAL, TEHSIL ZIRA HEAD OFFICE, OLD CANTT ROAD, FARIDKOT,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

section 148B read with CBDT issued the manual of office procedure in February 2003, the assessment is vitiated and liable to be annulled. 4. That even the approval as sought by the assessing officer of the order u/s 143(3) from the Addl. CIT is non est / bad in law and the granting of the approval of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, TEHSIL ZIRA, FARIDKOT -151203, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

section 148B read with CBDT issued the manual of office procedure in February 2003, the assessment is vitiated and liable to be annulled. 4. That even the approval as sought by the assessing officer of the order u/s 143(3) from the Addl. CIT is non est / bad in law and the granting of the approval of the order