SMT. MEENAKSHI MITTAL,JAGRAON vs. ITO,WARD-1, JAGRAON

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

section 148 and/or 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at\nall.\n2. It is submitted that the Appellant has not been served any notice u/s 148\nof the L.T. Act. 1961. It is denied that the notice u/s 148 was served upon the\nAssessee on 30.03.2017. The Assessee after marriage has shifted to her new\nresidential address

PAWAN KUMAR,AMBALA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

46A of the Income Tax Rules. 3. As per the Assessing Officer, return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was e-filed on 08.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs.2,20,660/- as Income from business & profession. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS under reason "large cash deposits in bank account(s) during the year". Information

ALLAHABAD BANK NOW INDIAN BANK,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS CIRCLE), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

TDS. 5. That Ld. CIT(Appeals) has failed to establish that thus order passed totally delay in filing appeal is intentional and wrong and illegal casual approach of appellant. Thus order passed by CIT(A) ignoring correct facts and reasonable cause is totally wrong and illegal. 6. That the order passed by learned CIT (Appeals) is not a speaking

BANSAL RICE TRADERS,SANGRUR vs. ITO-WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on 18.12.2017 by making an addition of Rs. 17,23,119 ( Rs. 15,00,000/- unexplained cash and Rs. 2,223,119/- contractual receipt received at Rs. 17,23,120/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, sufficient opportunities of being heard were provided to the assessee and the assessee the assessee

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

46A of the I.T.Rule 1962 cannot be\naccepted.\" In this regard it is stated that the copy of notices issued by Ld. AO\ndated 19.11.2018 and its reply dated 23.11.2018 filed to Ld. AO is enclosed in\npaper book which shows that assessee duly submitted that proper ledgers are\nmaintained and were filed also.\nC. That the hostel/transport facility

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,NABHA vs. DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

M/S K.LALL OVERSEAS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

TDS thereupon also deducted and deposited with the Income Tax Department. It has been further mentioned that the said amount has been returned back on 24.12.2012 to the said party. The ld. counsel has further submitted that, even otherwise, additions were made by the AO in the hands of the said party. Once the addition of income has been made

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S K LAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

TDS thereupon also deducted and deposited with the Income Tax Department. It has been further mentioned that the said amount has been returned back on 24.12.2012 to the said party. The ld. counsel has further submitted that, even otherwise, additions were made by the AO in the hands of the said party. Once the addition of income has been made