MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

SH. CHANDRESH JAIN PROP. M/S PRABHAT THREAD (INDIA) ,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 699/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Chandresh Jain, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Prop. M/S Prabhat Thread Ward 2(1), (India), Gali No. 3, Mahavir Ludhiana Colony, G.T. Road, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abdpj7395R अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of such TDS, which was paid within stipulated time and has wrongly observed that it should be paid within seven days, which is as per clause 1(b) of rule 30. The TDS payable on contract and TDS on professional was paid on 29.07.2020 and as per the provisions of section 43B, if the assessee pays the amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowance of the expenditure can be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. For holding so, the Bench followed the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Karwat Steel Traders Vs ITO”, 145 ITD 370 (Mum)., wherein, it was held that the amount cannot be allowed as deduction only in the event when

LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

disallowances, without any supporting\nmaterial, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the additions\nsustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are directed to be deleted.\n20. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed an addition of Rs.34,110/- in\nrespect of jewellery for the assessment year 2020-21 by relying\nupon a jewellery bill dated 28th October 2020. Similarly

LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI, CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2 CHD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

disallowances, without any supporting\nmaterial, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the additions\nsustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are directed to be deleted.\n20. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed an addition of Rs.34,110/- in\nrespect of jewellery for the assessment year 2020-21 by relying\nupon a jewellery bill dated 28th October 2020. Similarly

SH.ANIL DHIWAN S/O SH.A.K.DHWAN vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Anil Dhawan, S/O Sh.A.K.Dhawan, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Moti Bazar, Mandi, Distt. Mandi (H.P.) Circle-Mandi (H.P.) Pan: Aejpd7188M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.91,83,554/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act is not sustainable ITA No No.1298/Chd/2016 14 A.Y. 2009-10 Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the impugned addition and consequently, this ground of appeal is treated as allowed.” 12. In the case of Gurpreet Singh Sethi (supra) the assessee

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

disallowed by the AO. 16. The question that arises for consideration is whether the AO can substitute the stated sale consideration with another amount and held the latter figure, being a comparative sale figure as full value of consideration for the purposes of computation of capital gains. In this regard, it has been contended by the ld AR that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

M/S KUBER ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance resulting in addition to income made for Rs. 19,39,60,866/-, is directed to be deleted.” 8. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that mere preparation of documents for purchases cannot controvert overwhelming evidence that the provider of these bills are bogus and they have admitted the same in their statement recorded on oath under section

M/S THE H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, BANIKHET BRANCH,CHAMBA vs. ITO (TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

1A). A spot inspection/survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the premises of the Bank on 07.01.2014. During the course of survey/inspection, copy of Audit Report along with Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet was obtained. A perusal of the Balance Sheet for the F.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 showed

M/S THE H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHAMBA vs. ITO (TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

1A). A spot inspection/survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the premises of the Bank on 07.01.2014. During the course of survey/inspection, copy of Audit Report along with Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet was obtained. A perusal of the Balance Sheet for the F.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 showed

M/S THE H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, DALHOUSIE BRANCH,CHAMBA vs. ITO (TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

1A). A spot inspection/survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the premises of the Bank on 07.01.2014. During the course of survey/inspection, copy of Audit Report along with Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet was obtained. A perusal of the Balance Sheet for the F.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 showed