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

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

condone the alleged delay\nand proceed to decide the Cross Objections on merit in both\nthe assessment years.\n7. The Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal in each\n assessment year. In brief, its grievance revolves around a\nsingle issue and the issues pleaded in rest of the grounds are\nperipheral arguments qua the central point. The common\nissue

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

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

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

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

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

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

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

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

MINING OFFICER,MOHALI vs. ITO(TDS)-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Appellate Tribunal For Condonation Of The Short Delay In Submission Of The Appeal. Your Faithfully For Mining Office, Mohali & Ropar (Mining Officer)

condoning the delay of 45 days despite of fact that there was no lapse on part of appellant & delay was caused due to fact that the date of receipt of assessment order was wrongly taken by staff of counsel. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred by confirming the demand of Rs. 18,33,376/- made

SARU ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CEN. CIR., PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of undertaking civil projects for Military engineering services under the name and style of M/s Saru Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and works as a MES contractor. A survey operation under section 133A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , LUDHIANA vs. DEEPANKAR JAIN, LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed and Cross

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condoned: Memo of appeal of the department received 27.03.2025 by the assessee Due date of filing Cross Objections 26.04.2025 Cross Objections filed on 19.06.2025 Delay 53 days 6. We have gone through the ground of Cross Objections and since the legal issue has been raised about the completion of search assessment u/s 143(3) and all the facts are borne

JCIT(OSD)(TDS),CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S LIBERTY SHOES LTD.,, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 268/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S Liberty Shoes Ltd., बनाम 13Th Mile Stone, Tax (Osd) (Tds) Circle Aaykar Bhawan, Sector 2 Liberty Puram, G.T. Road, Panchkula Kutail, Karnal Tan No: Rtkl00664G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

133A(1) of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee company on 19.10.2017. Perusal of relevant documents during the course of survey ITA No.268-Chd-2020- Liberty Shoes Limited, Karnal 2 proceedings and the post survey enquiry revealed that the assessee had not deducted tax at source on the payment of incentive to various dealers. Accordingly

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1),, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA, SAMB BRANCH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,AMRITSAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INDIA (IN-SITU), LUDHIANA

The appeal is dismissed

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE(15875),PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

GULZAR MOHD,MALERKOTLA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

delay is condoned. 3. Originally, assessee has raised six grounds of appeal but thereafter, he has filed an application for permission to raise two additional grounds of appeal. In brief, grievance of the assessee in all these grounds is that ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the assessment