DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners appearing on the warrant of authorization issued u/s\n132(1) but no search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee\nfirm. The address mentioned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners appearing on the warrant of authorization issued u/s\n132(1) but no search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee\nfirm. The address mentioned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners appearing on the warrant of authorization issued u/s\n132(1) but no search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee\nfirm. The address mentioned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners appearing on the warrant of authorization issued u/s\n132(1) but no search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee\nfirm. The address mentioned

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

133A of the Act and separately disclosed in the profit and loss account for the instant assessment year. It is submitted that the aforesaid set off of loss is in accordance with section 70 of the Act. Section 70 of the Act provides as under: "Set off of loss from one source against income from another source under the same

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

133A or under section 131 of the Act, reaffirmed that the transaction was that of a loan. L. That the assessee through letter dated 24.2.2014 addressed to DDIT(Investigation) had stated that it had shown the lease finance as unsecured loan in its books. M. That CISCO is a Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and its main activity

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

133A or under section 131 of the Act, reaffirmed that the transaction was that of a loan. L. That the assessee through letter dated 24.2.2014 addressed to DDIT(Investigation) had stated that it had shown the lease finance as unsecured loan in its books. M. That CISCO is a Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and its main activity

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

133A or under section 131 of the Act, reaffirmed that the transaction was that of a loan. L. That the assessee through letter dated 24.2.2014 addressed to DDIT(Investigation) had stated that it had shown the lease finance as unsecured loan in its books. M. That CISCO is a Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and its main activity

M/S BRONZE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Bronze Logistics P.Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 863 Industrial Area-A, Circle Vii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan No. : Aabcb9505H

133A was conducted, assessee's name was found which revealed that accommodation entries had been provided. It was his submission that he would file a copy of the order of ITAT in the case of Canon Group of Industries to show that the allegations were wrongly made and the entire addition, infact has been deleted. Copy of the said order

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose." The perusal of relevant provisions of Section 80IC reveals that to become eligible for 80IC deduction, an assessee must satisfy the conditions mentioned in sub section (2) & (4), which are, in other words, qualifying provisions for exemption u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act 1961. Eligibility

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose." The perusal of relevant provisions of Section 80IC reveals that to become eligible for 80IC deduction, an assessee must satisfy the conditions mentioned in sub section (2) & (4), which are, in other words, qualifying provisions for exemption u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act 1961. Eligibility

M/S BLUE COAST INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT P. LTD.,SOLAN vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

In the result the appeal of the assessee is, hereby allowed and

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 652/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Blue Coast Infrastructure Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Development P. Ltd., 7, Income Tax, Circle, बनाम Shopping Complex, Sector-1, Parwanoo Parwanoo, Distt. Solan, H.P.

transfer of capital assets. As per section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act 1961, capital asset has been defined as "Capital asset means property of any kind held by an assessee whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include- ..........................(iii) agricultural land in India, not being land situate- (a) in any area which

LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

transferred to the office of Ld. A.O. - ACIT- Central\nCircle II, Chandigarh vide order under section 127of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\n5.2 Accordingly, assessment in the case under consideration\nhas been made u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated\n31.03.2022 by the Ld. A.O.\n5.3 During the course of assessment for AY 2020-21, total

LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI, CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2 CHD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

transferred to the office of Ld. A.O. - ACIT- Central\nCircle II, Chandigarh vide order under section 127of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\n5.2 Accordingly, assessment in the case under consideration\nhas been made u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated\n31.03.2022 by the Ld. A.O.\n5.3 During the course of assessment for AY 2020-21, total

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. M/S S.A. SINGH & CO., BHAWANIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

133A(2A) of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 15/12/2016 and on examination of the assessee’s records, it was noticed by the Survey Team that the assessee has made freight payment of Rs. 29,13,79,552/- to M/s Shree Guru Teg Bahadur Truck Operator Union Bhawanigarh for transport of goods

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

transferred to the\nbeneficiaries at a very nominal price mostly off line through preferential\nallotment or offline sale to save STT.\n2.12 The beneficiary individuals were made to hold the shares for a\nminimum period of one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is\nexempt under the provisions of Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961.\n2.13

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptam/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Tds-Ii, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A & M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A (Appellant) (Respondent)

133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 20.1.2010, during the course of which it was noticed that the person responsible (PR) had not deducted tax at source from the payment made towards incentives on prepaid Sim cards sold to distributors and also on the roaming charges paid to other service providers

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptam/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Tds-Ii, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A & M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A (Appellant) (Respondent)

133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 20.1.2010, during the course of which it was noticed that the person responsible (PR) had not deducted tax at source from the payment made towards incentives on prepaid Sim cards sold to distributors and also on the roaming charges paid to other service providers

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO TDS-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptam/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Tds-Ii, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A & M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A (Appellant) (Respondent)

133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 20.1.2010, during the course of which it was noticed that the person responsible (PR) had not deducted tax at source from the payment made towards incentives on prepaid Sim cards sold to distributors and also on the roaming charges paid to other service providers