HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

11 and section 12 in the assessment dated 27.09.2017 after\nconsidering the material placed on record. Where an assessing officer, after\nenquiry, takes a view which is tenable on the material, such a view cannot be re-\ncharacterised as “erroneous” merely because the Learned CIT prefers an alternate\nconclusion.\n\n3.1.6 In the present case, the Learned CIT, Exemptions

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

11 and section 12 in the assessment dated 27.09.2017 after\nconsidering the material placed on record. Where an assessing officer, after\nenquiry, takes a view which is tenable on the material, such a view cannot be re-\ncharacterised as \"erroneous\" merely because the Learned CIT prefers an alternate\nconclusion.\n\n3.1.6 In the present case, the Learned CIT, Exemptions

THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATIALA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

11 read with section 12 i.e. 33% ( 85% minus %age of application of income in the year under consideration ) should not be added in your return of income. Your reply should reach to the office of the undersigned on or before 26-03-2013 at 3.30 P.M. 16. In response to the above letter, the assessee society vide its letter

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

11 read with section 12 i.e. 33% ( 85% minus %age of application of income in the year under consideration ) should not be added in your return of income. Your reply should reach to the office of the undersigned on or before 26-03-2013 at 3.30 P.M. 16. In response to the above letter, the assessee society vide its letter

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 11 of the\nIncome Tax Act. This Rs.20/- is to be disallowed and\nbrought to tax.\n9.5 The AO has disallowed the payments made to Global\nEducational Consultants and Shubhdeep Consultants.\nHe\nwas of the view that Global Educational Consultants is the\nconcern of Mrs. Kalpana Thakur who is wife of the Secretary\nITA No.52/CHD/2023

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)

Section 195 do not get attracted and there was no liability on the assessee to make TDS on the payment made. 11

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)

Section 195 do not get attracted and there was no liability on the assessee to make TDS on the payment made. 11

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)

Section 195 do not get attracted and there was no liability on the assessee to make TDS on the payment made. 11

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)

Section 195 do not get attracted and there was no liability on the assessee to make TDS on the payment made. 11

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

11 of the Act may kindly be allowed and assessee\nbe considered as Trust and not AOP.\n6.1\nLd. AR argued that the findings of the AO and Ld. CIT(A) were without\nbasis, as they failed to record the correct facts. It was submitted that the\nAssessee had filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated

SUNITA RANI 40 MS TEJ RAM HARISH KUMAR ADD. MANDI SIRSA ,HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BANGALURU JOA INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 SIRSA, HARYANA

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

11. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. The limited issue under consideration relates to transactions undertaken by the assessee with Smt. Saroj Gupta and Shri Anirudh Gupta wherein the latter had deducted TDS u/s 194Q of the Act. As per the contention of the ld AR, the said transaction relates to sale

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)

TDS u/s 194C on commission received from lorry business—Held, in case of CIT v. Cargo Linkers; (2009) 179 Taxman 151 (Del) - Pages No. 5 to 7 of the Judgment Set, Tribunal had noted and found as a matter of fact that assessee was nothing but an intermediary between exporters and airlines as it booked cargo for and on behalf

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 263 is not sustainable on this ground. (B) Oxford Street investment &TDS u/s 194-IA 11. The Ld. AR had submitted

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

section 56(2) by inserting clause (viii) to\nspecifically deal with taxability of interest on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation. The Id. AR submitted that the CBDT also issued a clarificatory\nCircular explaining the intent and scope of these amendments. In this\nconnection, our attention was drawn to paragraph 11 of the judgment of the\nHon'ble Gujarat High Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE(15875),PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1),, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices