MANJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, we set- aside the matter to the file of the AO and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

section 68 without having been able to understand the vital structure and the accounting entries and without fully and comprehensively understanding the case. 3. That the Ld. AO has wrongly and illegally made addition of Rs. 42,00,000/- ignoring the pleadings on record and against the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating the surrounding circumstances

SH. AMIT CHAUDHRY,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

68 against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. the Ld Appellate Authority has wrongly & illegally rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal on account of technical glitches of income tax portal being in infancy stages of new e-filing procedure for filing appeals before Commissioner(Appeals. 6. That the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C

SH. SURESH CHAUDHRY,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

68 against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. the Ld Appellate Authority has wrongly & illegally rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal on account of technical glitches of income tax portal being in infancy stages of new e-filing procedure for filing appeals before Commissioner(Appeals. 6. That the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C

SH. ASHISH CHAUDHRY,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

68 against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. the Ld Appellate Authority has wrongly & illegally rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal on account of technical glitches of income tax portal being in infancy stages of new e-filing procedure for filing appeals before Commissioner(Appeals. 6. That the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C

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

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

PAWAN GARG,PANCHKULA vs. ITO WARD 5((5) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed his return of income on 27.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,01,840/-. This return was accepted by the Department without making any changes. Thereaftr, according to the AO, he received an information that assessee is a beneficiary of bogus Long Term