SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report: 49.37 lakhs\nValue

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report: 49.37 lakhs\nValue

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report: 49.37 lakhs\nValue

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\n84\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report: 49.37 lakhs\nValue

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\n84\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report: 49.37 lakhs\nValue

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\n84\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report: 49.37 lakhs\nValue

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\n84\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report: 49.37 lakhs\nValue

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\n84\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report: 49.37 lakhs\nValue

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\n...\n...\n...\n...\n84\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report: 49.37 lakhs\nValue

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report: 49.37 lakhs\nValue

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report: 49.37 lakhs\nValue

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO further made addition u/s 69C on account of difference between the assessee’s\n\n\n85\ndeclared construction cost and the valuation made by the DVO. The details of the\nadditions made are as follows:\nHouse No. 3100, Sector 21, Chandigarh:\nValue as per DVO’s report

YOGESH CHANDER & SONS HUF,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), LUDHIANA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the CPC holding that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions of the proviso to Rule 37BA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, namely (i) filing of declaration with the deductor, and (ii) reporting of tax deduction by the deductor in the name of the other person.

dividend income has been duly offered to tax by the HUF, denial of TDS credit would amount to unjust enrichment of the Revenue. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents including: ITO v. Gopal Das HUF (ITAT Delhi),  Rajeev Goyal HUF v. ITO (ITA No. 312/JP/2021), and  M.M. Fish Products Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2018) 94 taxmann.com 305 (Hyd-Trib.)],  wherein

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS is mandatory under Section 195, the income of the Commission Agents being deemed to accrue or arise in India. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the aspect of income deemed to accrue or arise in India, as contained in Section 5(2)(b) of the Act has to be read alongwith the provisions of Section

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS is mandatory under Section 195, the income of the Commission Agents being deemed to accrue or arise in India. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the aspect of income deemed to accrue or arise in India, as contained in Section 5(2)(b) of the Act has to be read alongwith the provisions of Section

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS is mandatory under Section 195, the income of the Commission Agents being deemed to accrue or arise in India. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the aspect of income deemed to accrue or arise in India, as contained in Section 5(2)(b) of the Act has to be read alongwith the provisions of Section

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS is mandatory under Section 195, the income of the Commission Agents being deemed to accrue or arise in India. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the aspect of income deemed to accrue or arise in India, as contained in Section 5(2)(b) of the Act has to be read alongwith the provisions of Section