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

1) and 1B(B) to section 200 A of the Act. No other adjustment in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductors, were permissible within the law as it existed at that point of time. 6. In the above view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the coordinate bench decision in the case of Sibia

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

1) and 1B(B) to section 200 A of the Act. No other adjustment in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductors, were permissible within the law as it existed at that point of time. 6. In the above view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the coordinate bench decision in the case of Sibia

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

1) and 1B(B) to section 200 A of the Act. No other adjustment in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductors, were permissible within the law as it existed at that point of time. 6. In the above view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the coordinate bench decision in the case of Sibia

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

1) and 1B(B) to section 200 A of the Act. No other adjustment in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductors, were permissible within the law as it existed at that point of time. 6. In the above view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the coordinate bench decision in the case of Sibia

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

1) and 1B(B) to section 200 A of the Act. No other adjustment in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductors, were permissible within the law as it existed at that point of time. 6. In the above view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the coordinate bench decision in the case of Sibia

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), 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

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

1.M/s K.C. welfare 2014-15/ 19/02/2015 Social Trust, Navashahar Q-4 3. We understand that earlier, there was no enabling provision intheAct u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E. As such, in respect of TDS statement/Returns filed for a period prior to 31.03.2015, no late fee could be levied in the intimation issued

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

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

V R A COTTON MILLS.,ABOHAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

TDS was effected payment amounting to Rs.1,23,96,887/- made to the appellant’s export house contractor M/s. Narendra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that order impugned herein is based on logical reasoning and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity