SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 16528 VISHNU COLONY, RALIWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

TDS liability on behalf of trust and amount of Rs. 4,42,520/- is outstanding against his name as it was paid to him in advance. Further, there is also a reference to various entries such as: Entry standings in the Balance Sheet as white amount: 1) Abhinav Gupta 17250/- 2) Arun Gupta 226056/- 3) Rama Gupta 675322/- 4) Subash

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

TDS, as required under Chapter XVII-B. The appellant argued the payments were salary-related, but the Commissioner upheld the disallowance, confirming Section 40(a)(ia) applicability. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was levied and upheld as consequential. General grounds were not adjudicated. The appeal was dismissed on March 27, 2024, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

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

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

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

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

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

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

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

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

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

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

139(4) of the Income Tax\nAct declaring ‘nil' income.\n5.1 The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny\nassessment and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1)\nwere issued and served upon the assessee.\n5.2 The 1d. AO has analyzed the activities of the assessee\nand found that assessee has extended the undue benefit to\ntwo individuals

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153\nof the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income\nas defined in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, then no purpose would be served in\nreopening the assessment already completed. Also, if there is no detection of any\nundisclosed income, then there would be no need

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153\nof the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income\nas defined in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, then no purpose would be served in\nreopening the assessment already completed. Also, if there is no detection of any\nundisclosed income, then there would be no need

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153\nof the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income\nas defined in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, then no purpose would be served in\nreopening the assessment already completed. Also, if there is no detection of any\nundisclosed income, then there would be no need

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153\nof the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income\nas defined in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, then no purpose would be served in\nreopening the assessment already completed. Also, if there is no detection of any\nundisclosed income, then there would be no need

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS @ 15% Omaxe 2007-08 Rs. 2,58,092/- Rs. 39,488/- 2008-09 Rs. 61,93,345/- Rs. 1,