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 on the appellant is duly covered by the provisions of section 273B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the appellant duly had a genuine reasonable cause as explained above for not collecting the Tax at Source (TCS). Moreover, the admission of the appeal by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court also supports the bona fide

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 on the appellant is duly covered by the provisions of section 273B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the appellant duly had a genuine reasonable cause as explained above for not collecting the Tax at Source (TCS). Moreover, the admission of the appeal by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court also supports the bona fide

M/S 10-D RETAILS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-1(3), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

u/s 271 (1)(c) were initiated separately for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and thereby a penalty of Rs. 92,700/- was imposed by the Assessing Officer @ 100% of the tax amount sought to be evaded. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty in respect of the addition made by the Assessing

AMARJEET BEETON HUF,DHURI vs. ACIT, C-4, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumaramarjeet Beeton(Huf) Vs. The Asstt. Ci T Prop. M/S Shiva Udyog, Circle-4 House No. 210, Ward No. 10-B Ludhiana Shivpuri Mohalla, Dhuri

u/s 271(l)(c) and subsequently levied penalty of Rs.66,939/-. 4. It was argued before us that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on the ground that Smt. Anita Sharma has failed to respond to the office notice and from the copy of her income tax return, her credit worthiness/capacity to lend is doubtful. 5. The assessee

ITO, BARNALA vs. M/S THE TRUCK OPERATOR UNION, BARNALA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2004-05

penalty under section 271C are that the AO had made addition to returned income on the ground that there was a difference of Rs. 47,40,508/-in the gross receipts of the appellant as the assessee has failed to show its receipts correctly as reflected in the TDS certificate. 5. In the quantum appeal bearing appeal no. 324/IT/CIT