SH. DINKAR KHANNA,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT -1, CIRCLE 1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

TDS of Rs. 311746/- which is duly reflected in Form 26AS. 3. That the Worthy CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has also erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1945/- on account of labour welfare fund employees share which was already disallowed by the assessee while filing the return of income. 4. That the Appellant craves leave for permission

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

iv) of a sum equal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,65,610/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

iv) of a sum equal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,65,610/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

iv) of a sum equal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,65,610/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

iv) of a sum equal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,65,610/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

iv) of a sum equal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,65,610/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

iv) of a sum equal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,65,610/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

iv) of a sum equal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,65,610/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

iv) of a sum equal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,65,610/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

iv) of a sum equal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,65,610/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under

SH. PARGAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD -1, KAITHAL

iv) of a sum\nequal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest.\n3.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both\nin law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.34,65,610/- made by\nthe Ld. Assessing Officer under

GURDEEP SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

iv) of a sum\nequal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest.\n3.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both\nin law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.34,65,610/- made by\nthe Ld. Assessing Officer under

RANJEET SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD 2, AMBALA

iv) of a sum\nequal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest.\n3.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both\nin law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.34,65,610/- made by\nthe Ld. Assessing Officer under

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

iv) of a sum\nequal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest.\n3.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both\nin law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.34,65,610/- made by\nthe Ld. Assessing Officer under

SARVAN SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 4, AMBALA

iv) of a sum\nequal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest.\n3.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both\nin law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.34,65,610/- made by\nthe Ld. Assessing Officer under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBALA vs. NACHHATAR SINGH, AMBALA CANTT

iv) of a sum\nequal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest.\n3.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both\nin law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.34,65,610/- made by\nthe Ld. Assessing Officer under

JARNAIL SINGH,VILLAGE BHAGWANPUR, KALKA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

iv) of a sum\nequal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest.\n3.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both\nin law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.34,65,610/- made by\nthe Ld. Assessing Officer under

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

iv) of a sum\nequal to fifty percent of the said amount of interest.\n3.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both\nin law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.34,65,610/- made by\nthe Ld. Assessing Officer under