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)

12 Department, again has not been able to refute this. As a necessary corollary, then, since the income of the non- residents is not exigible to tax in India, the provisions of Section 195 do not get attracted and there was no liability on the assessee to make TDS

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)

12 Department, again has not been able to refute this. As a necessary corollary, then, since the income of the non- residents is not exigible to tax in India, the provisions of Section 195 do not get attracted and there was no liability on the assessee to make TDS

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)

12 Department, again has not been able to refute this. As a necessary corollary, then, since the income of the non- residents is not exigible to tax in India, the provisions of Section 195 do not get attracted and there was no liability on the assessee to make TDS

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)

12 Department, again has not been able to refute this. As a necessary corollary, then, since the income of the non- residents is not exigible to tax in India, the provisions of Section 195 do not get attracted and there was no liability on the assessee to make TDS

AJAY KUMAR,FATEHABAD, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD, HARYANA

TDS.\n10. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is\nin appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove.\n11. The Id. AR, Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocatethereafter, placing reliance\non the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the judicial position, invited\nour attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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)

TDS has been done by Smt Saroj Gupta and Shri Anirudh Gupta under both section 194Q as well as 194H as evident from Form 26AS, there is not enough material available on record to decide the exact nature of transactions so undertaken and decide the matter judiciously and in the fitness of the things, it would be appropriate that

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

TDS was required to be deducted from the\nsaid payments, AO had not invoked the provisions of section\n40(a)(ia) of The Act, but however the said issue was raised by the\nAssessing officer during the course of Assessment proceedings, to\nwhich the Appellant has duly submitted his reply. The tribunal held\nthat -\n“The fact that the Assessing

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

TDS was required to be deducted from the\nsaid payments, AO had not invoked the provisions of section\n40(a)(ia) of The Act, but however the said issue was raised by the\nAssessing officer during the course of Assessment proceedings, to\nwhich the Appellant has duly submitted his reply. The tribunal held\nthat -\n“The fact that the Assessing

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

TDS was required to be deducted from the\nsaid payments, AO had not invoked the provisions of section\n40(a)(ia) of The Act, but however the said issue was raised by the\nAssessing officer during the course of Assessment proceedings, to\nwhich the Appellant has duly submitted his reply. The tribunal held\nthat -\n\n“The fact that

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

TDS was required to be deducted from the\nsaid payments, AO had not invoked the provisions of section\n40(a)(ia) of The Act, but however the said issue was raised by the\nAssessing officer during the course of Assessment proceedings, to\nwhich the Appellant has duly submitted his reply. The tribunal held\nthat -\n\n“The fact that

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)

Section 194C(1) of the Act, it was submitted that in the instant case "Person responsible for paying any sum" is PIH and not the Appellant Firm as it is the goods of PIH that are being transported and not of Appellant Firm and the Tripartite Agreement and Minutes clearly justify it. Further, the work is carried

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

section 200A dated 26/11/2020. There is thus a delay in filing of Form 27Q and the question that arise for consideration is whether the AO has any discretion in examining the explanation so submitted by the assessee explaining the delay in filing the TDS Statement and where the same is found to be acceptable, can the AO reduce or delete

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

12% per\n\n23\n\nannum. Similarly, under Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act there is a provision for\nsolatium which also represents part of the enhanced compensation. Similarly,\nSection 28 empowers the court in its discretion to award interest on the\nexcess amount of compensation over and above what is awarded by the\nCollector. It includes additional amount

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

section 28 of the Act of 1894. 19. The ld. AR further invited our attention to paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in MavaliyaBhikhubhaiBalabhai vs. ITO–TDS

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

section 28 of the Act of 1894. 19. The ld. AR further invited our attention to paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in MavaliyaBhikhubhaiBalabhai vs. ITO–TDS

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

section 28 of the Act of 1894. 19. The ld. AR further invited our attention to paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in MavaliyaBhikhubhaiBalabhai vs. ITO–TDS

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

section 28 of the Act of 1894. 19. The ld. AR further invited our attention to paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in MavaliyaBhikhubhaiBalabhai vs. ITO–TDS

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

section 28 of the Act of 1894. 19. The ld. AR further invited our attention to paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in MavaliyaBhikhubhaiBalabhai vs. ITO–TDS