DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALNDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

KC SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST (REGD),NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER . TDS., JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS)’ in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 vide order dtd. 09.04.2018 and recently the Amritsar Bench in case of Harbhagwan Memorial Sen. Sec. School and others in ITA No. 604/ASR/2018, Assessment Year 2015-16 vide order dated 07/07/2019.The relevant part of the order is reproduced as funder: “3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRANS ASIA INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION (P) LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS applicability on petty freight expenses which do not fall within the ambit of section 194C because no payment was above the threshold limit. Thus, the 2nd issue of the department is rejected. I.T.A. Nos. 751 & 753/Asr/2014 Trans Asian Industries Exposition P. Ltd. v. AO/ITO 10. The third item relates to short deduction of tax on payments covered

THE TRANS ASIAN INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION PVT. LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ASSESING OFFICER(TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS applicability on petty freight expenses which do not fall within the ambit of section 194C because no payment was above the threshold limit. Thus, the 2nd issue of the department is rejected. I.T.A. Nos. 751 & 753/Asr/2014 Trans Asian Industries Exposition P. Ltd. v. AO/ITO 10. The third item relates to short deduction of tax on payments covered

B D S TECHOLOGIES,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS (2020) 122 taxman.com 196 (Delhi, Trib.). Accordingly, he has requested to quash the order of the worthy CIT(A) confirming the levy of fee of the appellant for different quarters of the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR stand by the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival

B D S TECHNOLOGIES,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS (2020) 122 taxman.com 196 (Delhi, Trib.). Accordingly, he has requested to quash the order of the worthy CIT(A) confirming the levy of fee of the appellant for different quarters of the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR stand by the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival

B D S TECHNOLOGIES ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS (2020) 122 taxman.com 196 (Delhi, Trib.). Accordingly, he has requested to quash the order of the worthy CIT(A) confirming the levy of fee of the appellant for different quarters of the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR stand by the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival

B D S TECHNOLOGIES,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS (2020) 122 taxman.com 196 (Delhi, Trib.). Accordingly, he has requested to quash the order of the worthy CIT(A) confirming the levy of fee of the appellant for different quarters of the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR stand by the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival

B D S TECHNOLOGIES,AMRITSAR vs. INCME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS (2020) 122 taxman.com 196 (Delhi, Trib.). Accordingly, he has requested to quash the order of the worthy CIT(A) confirming the levy of fee of the appellant for different quarters of the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR stand by the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) , SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS statement and therefore fees would be levied even without the regulatory provision being found in section 200A for computation of fees. However, according to the Ld. AR, it is a settled position of law that when there is no decision of the jurisdictional High court, and if there is conflicting judgment of two non-jurisdictional High Courts

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS statement and therefore fees would be levied even without the regulatory provision being found in section 200A for computation of fees. However, according to the Ld. AR, it is a settled position of law that when there is no decision of the jurisdictional High court, and if there is conflicting judgment of two non-jurisdictional High Courts

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS statement and therefore fees would be levied even without the regulatory provision being found in section 200A for computation of fees. However, according to the Ld. AR, it is a settled position of law that when there is no decision of the jurisdictional High court, and if there is conflicting judgment of two non-jurisdictional High Courts

SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, ZIRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

192/- as exempted income u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 including additional 12% compensation amount of Rs.19,80,064/- during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The AO has observed that the received interest on compensation amount and it is to be taken as income in the year in which