DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AETPK0153M Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 48 to 50/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Sh. Paramjit Singh, बनाम Chandigarh H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AETPK0153M Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 48 to 50/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Sh. Paramjit Singh, बनाम Chandigarh H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AETPK0153M Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 48 to 50/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Sh. Paramjit Singh, बनाम Chandigarh H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AETPK0153M Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 48 to 50/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Sh. Paramjit Singh, बनाम Chandigarh H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

201, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AETPK0153M Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 48 to 50/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Sh. Paramjit Singh, बनाम Chandigarh H.N o.4197, Sector 68, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं

SH. ABHIMANYU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

68 of l.T. Act 7. The addition has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. Before us, the Ld. AR has reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. It was argued that, I. The evidence of purchase of shares of M/s Sharp transport Pvt. Ltd. In the form of contract note and copy of account of assessee

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132(4) of the Act after confronting various documents of incriminating In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 49 nature and the statement recorded of various persons. Thus, the admission by the assessee in itself is a vital piece of evidence that the group of the assessee has generated huge bogus

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 194H to deduct tax at source on the payment made to sub franchisee and since PR assessee has failed to do so, the same is liable u/s 201(1) alongwith interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. On perusal of record and arguments of both the authorities below, we are of the view that the assessee has declared

M/S NIRBHAI TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-2, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1401/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2014-15

68,182 equity shares having a par value of Rs. 10/- per share at a premium of Rs. 100/- per share. In response to queries raised by the AO in this regard, the assessee filed calculation of valuation of shares following the Discounted Cash Flow Method (DCF) duly certified by a Chartered Accountant. However, the AO noted that the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

68 & 64 of 2016 dated 20.12.2016 and separate orders dated 9.5.2017 in ITA Nos. 65, 69, 97 & 98 (O&M) of 2016 respectively to decide as to whether the assessee herein before us namely ‘Punjab Infrastructure Development Board’ (herein referred to as ‘ PIDB’) was required to collect tax at source (TCS) as per the provisions of section