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 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

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. 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

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

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

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

288 of PB-CL-2 for AY2006-07]: “6. Regarding Question No. 2, during the course of proceedings in the relevant Assessment Year 2003-04, the AO disallowed 10% from the expenditure on brand enhancement on the ground that it was allocable to the overseas owner/collaborator. The AC) reasoned that any enhancement in the brand presence of the assesses invariably

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

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

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

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 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