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

section 13(3) also\ndoes not seems to be unjustifiable as percentage of remuneration to members\nagainst the total revenue of the society is negligible and is paid for the services\nrendered by them towards achieving the object and goals of the society in the\nsmooth and effective manner. Further, there are many employees in the society\nwho are getting

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)

8 that the services of the agents were rendered in their respective countries and not in India; that there is nothing on record to show that these services were technical in nature; that the AO had utterly failed to show that there was any business connection in India; that as such, there was no basis for the AO to make

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)

8 that the services of the agents were rendered in their respective countries and not in India; that there is nothing on record to show that these services were technical in nature; that the AO had utterly failed to show that there was any business connection in India; that as such, there was no basis for the AO to make

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)

8 that the services of the agents were rendered in their respective countries and not in India; that there is nothing on record to show that these services were technical in nature; that the AO had utterly failed to show that there was any business connection in India; that as such, there was no basis for the AO to make

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)

8 that the services of the agents were rendered in their respective countries and not in India; that there is nothing on record to show that these services were technical in nature; that the AO had utterly failed to show that there was any business connection in India; that as such, there was no basis for the AO to make

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”.

8. The assessee society claimed capital expenditure of Rs. 6,61,52,498/- on account of construction of building. 9. The assessee society was called upon to justify and substantiate the aforesaid capital expenditure as claimed by them in the computation sheet with the documentary evidence in support thereof. 10. During the Financial Year 01/04/2009 to 31/03/2010 relevant

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”.

8. The assessee society claimed capital expenditure of Rs. 6,61,52,498/- on account of construction of building. 9. The assessee society was called upon to justify and substantiate the aforesaid capital expenditure as claimed by them in the computation sheet with the documentary evidence in support thereof. 10. During the Financial Year 01/04/2009 to 31/03/2010 relevant

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)

13,79,552/-. 4.1 In response, the assessee submitted that it has not entered into any verbal or written contract for hiring of trucks with the Truck Operator Union and it is only acting as a transport commission agent for carriage of goods and no freight charges were paid to Truck Operator Union in pursuance of the contract for specific

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

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

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

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

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

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

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

SURYA MOTORS,ABOHAR vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 302/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Surya Motors, Vs. The Dcit, Near Dav Campus, बनाम Central Circle-3, Hanuman Road, Ludhiana Abohar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadfs2727B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None ( Written Submissions ) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana (Herein Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’ ) Dated 10.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Tds Of Rs. 41157/- Relating To National Insurance Co. Ltd.

8,65,846/- u/s 143(3) vide order dt. 29/09/2021 and created a demand of Rs. 11,35,385/-. But while computing demand the Assessing Officer did not give any reason for non-allowance credit for TDS of Rs. 78150/- (41157 + 36993) and TCS of Rs. 13,764/-. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), ld CIT(A) vide order