KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1. That the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1. That the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1. That the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1. That the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1. That the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings

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

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

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

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

90 assessment orders of this group were also\nsent to the Addl. Commissioner who has granted the approval\non same day i.e. 29.09.2021. The ld. counsel for the assessee,\nthereafter, made reference to the letter of the Assessing\nOfficer dated 29.09.2021 vide which approval was sought in\nthe case of Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral, Shri Kewal Krishan\nChhabra for assessment

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

90 assessment orders of this group were also\nsent to the Addl. Commissioner who has granted the approval\non same day i.e. 29.09.2021. The ld. counsel for the assessee,\nthereafter, made reference to the letter of the Assessing\nOfficer dated 29.09.2021 vide which approval was sought in\nthe case of Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral, Shri Kewal Krishan\nChhabra for assessment

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

VARDHMAN POLYTEX LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT(TDS), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. Though Notices Were Issued Electronically Through The E-Filing Portal, The Assessee Contended That Such Notices Were Neither Brought To Their Knowledge Nor Received Through Any Alternative Means Such As Email Or Physical Intimation. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte. It Was Further Submitted That The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is Legal In Nature & Does Not Require Examination Of Disputed Facts; Hence, The Matter May Be Adjudicated On Merits Without The Necessity Of A Remand To The Lower Authorities.

90,081/- raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, arising out of alleged non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C(6) in respect of freight payments made to certain transporters. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not participate in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

90,000/- Figures in 26AS Ram Jian Samarak Samiti 3 ACP Enterprises 3,11,00,000/- 3,11,000/- Figures in 26AS 4 Land at Jawadi 48,00,000/- 0 TDS not deducted (Model Town Ext.) being transaction less than 50 lakh. Figure taken from Trading account 5. Although you had sold, four properties worth

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

90,430 2,46,72,893 3,91,63,323 2.14 The Ld. AO in assessment order at para 5.4 has held that Therefore the expenses in the Haridwar unit stand enhanced by the “ 5.4 following amounts: 1. Administrative expenses = 2,48,92,749/- - 1,29,51,059 = 1,19,41,690/- 2. Misc. Expenses = 2,46,72,893 – 1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

90,430 2,46,72,893 3,91,63,323 2.14 The Ld. AO in assessment order at para 5.4 has held that Therefore the expenses in the Haridwar unit stand enhanced by the “ 5.4 following amounts: 1. Administrative expenses = 2,48,92,749/- - 1,29,51,059 = 1,19,41,690/- 2. Misc. Expenses = 2,46,72,893 – 1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

90,430 2,46,72,893 3,91,63,323 2.14 The Ld. AO in assessment order at para 5.4 has held that Therefore the expenses in the Haridwar unit stand enhanced by the “ 5.4 following amounts: 1. Administrative expenses = 2,48,92,749/- - 1,29,51,059 = 1,19,41,690/- 2. Misc. Expenses = 2,46,72,893 – 1