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

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

M/S PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL,PANCHKULA vs. ADDL. CIT, PANCHKULA RANGE, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Prestige International, Vs. The Addl.Cit, 267, Industrial Area, Panchkula Range, Phase-1, Panchkula. Panchkula. Pan: Aaifp3677L (Appellant) (Respondent)

201(1) and Section 40(a)(ia). The action of the AO in making addition of Rs.4,50,000/- by disallowing

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 Rs.1,86,96,356/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, for the reason that the assessee had not filed the Form 26A before the Director General of Income Tax (Systems). The AO held that as per the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with those of Section 201

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance for AY 2016–17, we direct the AO to consider the assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs.82,78,750/- in AY 2017–18, if otherwise found in order, in accordance with the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. 5 9. In the result, Ground No. 2 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, this

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. 25. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submission which had been incorporated in para 11.1 of the impugned order, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 25.1 The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the written submissions

SH. SOURABH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(3), LUDHIANA

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

disallowance stating that the assessee is not saved by amendment made to section 40(a)(ia) w.e.f. 1.4.2013 as per which if the assessee is not deemed to an assessee in default under the 1 s t proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201

SH. SHIV PAL CHAUDHARY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptash.Shiv Pal Chaudhary, Vs. The D.C.I.T., H.No.3121, Sector 28D, Circle Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aakpc6883B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 201 of the Act and no disallowance of the said expenses, therefore, could be made as per the amended

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

section 115BBE of the income Tax Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in the Hotel Building. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the reference to the Departmental Valuer, for estimate cost of construction of the hotel building, without any incriminating evidence during the course of search from

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED 2000-1A, SUKHDEV NAGAR FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

section 115BBE of the income Tax Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in the Hotel Building. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the reference to the Departmental Valuer, for estimate cost of construction of the hotel building, without any incriminating evidence during the course of search from

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

section 115BBE of the income Tax Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in the Hotel Building. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the reference to the Departmental Valuer, for estimate cost of construction of the hotel building, without any incriminating evidence during the course of search from

SH. RANA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

201(1) of the Act as well section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by virtue of which where the assessee furnishes certificate in the requisite format that the payee has taken into account such sum for computing the income in its return of income and has paid the taxes due on the income declared by him in such return

ACIT, PATIALA vs. M/S SUKHMANI MEGA STRUCTURES PVT. LTD., PATIALA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 The Acit, Vs. Sukhmani Mega Structures Pvt Ltd, Circle Nimakh Enclave, Sirhind Road, Patiala Patiala Pan No. Aalcs9033K

disallowance of expenditure as provided under the proviso to section 40(a)((ia) of the Act, there are separate penalty provisions for non-deduction of TDS under section 201

JASWANT RAI VERMA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sh. Jaswant Rai Verma, Vs. The Acit, Circle 5(1), H.No.3209, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh Chandigarh

disallowance ITA No.625/Chd/2016- Sh. Jaswanat Rai Verma, Chandigarh 3 of expenditure as provided under the proviso to section 40(a)((ia) of the Act, there are separate penalty provisions for non-deduction of TDS under section 201

H.R. DEVELOPERS & PROMOTORS PVT. LTD.,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

section 201(1) and rule 31ACB. Considering the above facts, interest paid to NBFCs amounting to Rs. 32,26,980/- is disallowed

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)

Section 201(1) & 201(1 A) of the Act. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and that of the A.O. is reversed and all the grounds of the assessee are allowed. 13. In all the above cases, we find that the I.T.A.T. on examination of the facts of the case found that when recharge coupons and pre-paid