AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the appellant being resident, has provided complete explanation about the nature and source of sum so credited.” 4. At the outset, it is noted that there is delay in filing the appeal by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 dt. 23/03/2021

M/S AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the appellant being resident, has provided complete explanation about the nature and source of sum so credited.” 4. At the outset, it is noted that there is delay in filing the appeal by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 dt. 23/03/2021

NEERU ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. CIRCLE-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

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

144C(2) on 31.03.2023, along with Form No. 35A and various annexures, challenging the year of taxability, the incorrect application of section 50C, and the denial of deduction for the cost of acquisition. 8. The assessee contended that the transfer of the capital asset was completed in A.Y. 2010-11 when possession was handed over and full consideration

M/S JOSAN INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DCIT, CL-1, INTL. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

144C has exceeded the jurisdiction in as much the residential status of assessee firm is "Resident" and not "NRI" as mentioned in the draft order and as such the order passed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That since the Assessing Officer passing the Draft Assessment Order was not vested with any jurisdiction

M/S JOSAN INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DCIT, CL-1, INTL. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

144C has exceeded the jurisdiction in as much the residential status of assessee firm is "Resident" and not "NRI" as mentioned in the draft order and as such the order passed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That since the Assessing Officer passing the Draft Assessment Order was not vested with any jurisdiction

M/S JOSAN INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DCIT, CL-1, INTL. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

144C has exceeded the jurisdiction in as much the residential status of assessee firm is "Resident" and not "NRI" as mentioned in the draft order and as such the order passed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That since the Assessing Officer passing the Draft Assessment Order was not vested with any jurisdiction

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 3. In this regard, briefly the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that out of total travelling expenses debited in the P&L Account, an amount of Rs. 9,21,58,400/- has been claimed by the assesssee in respect of foreign travelling expenses

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,NABHA vs. DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that