THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had held that when the additions in respect of which penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied, are challenged in appeal before

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,SHIMLA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had held that when the additions in respect of which penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied, are challenged in appeal before

THE ASSISTANT EXCISE & TAXATION COMMISSIONER ,NAHAN vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SHIMLA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.903 /Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08 The Assistant Excise & बनाम The Additional Cit, Taxation Commissioner, Tds Range, Nahan Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan/Tan No: Ptla12468B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271CA of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had held that when the additions in respect of which penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied, are challenged in appeal before

M/S PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

penalty, as the case may be, under the provisions of section 206C(7) or 271 CA, as the case may be, would arise only, if the assessee was held to be Person Responsible to deduct / collect tax at source. It was pleaded that the Concession Agreement was entered into between the State of Punjab and the Concessionaire ‘M/s Rohan Rajdeep

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

penalty, as the case may be, under the provisions of section 206C(7) or 271 CA, as the case may be, would arise only, if the assessee was held to be Person Responsible to deduct / collect tax at source. It was pleaded that the Concession Agreement was entered into between the State of Punjab and the Concessionaire ‘M/s Rohan Rajdeep

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

penalty, as the case may be, under the provisions of section 206C(7) or 271 CA, as the case may be, would arise only, if the assessee was held to be Person Responsible to deduct / collect tax at source. It was pleaded that the Concession Agreement was entered into between the State of Punjab and the Concessionaire ‘M/s Rohan Rajdeep

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

penalty, as the case may be, under the provisions of section 206C(7) or 271 CA, as the case may be, would arise only, if the assessee was held to be Person Responsible to deduct / collect tax at source. It was pleaded that the Concession Agreement was entered into between the State of Punjab and the Concessionaire ‘M/s Rohan Rajdeep

M/S PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

penalty, as the case may be, under the provisions of section 206C(7) or 271 CA, as the case may be, would arise only, if the assessee was held to be Person Responsible to deduct / collect tax at source. It was pleaded that the Concession Agreement was entered into between the State of Punjab and the Concessionaire ‘M/s Rohan Rajdeep

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

penalty, as the case may be, under the provisions of section 206C(7) or 271 CA, as the case may be, would arise only, if the assessee was held to be Person Responsible to deduct / collect tax at source. It was pleaded that the Concession Agreement was entered into between the State of Punjab and the Concessionaire ‘M/s Rohan Rajdeep