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 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 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. 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

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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

TDS returns filed by the assessee showing the amount of tax deducted at source on interest paid to the loan creditors. This also proves the genuineness of the loan advanced by Sh. Amandeep Singh to the appellant in the year under consideration. Moreover, the identity of Sh. Amandeep Singh is established as he attended before

M/S TORRENT ROOFING SYSTEM,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

192/- was not investigated by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the order of the Assessing Officer was clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5.1 Hence, both the limbs of Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (S.C.) are satisfied. Hence, the Assessing Officer is justified in making addition on the basis of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme