THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\r\nallowed

section 194A 3(i)(b) or 194A (viia)(b). Rather this is a case of\r\n\"payment of interest\" by a co-operative society to “Another Co-\r\noperative Society” which squarely falls in TDS

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\nallowed

section 194A 3(i)(b) or 194A (viia)(b). Rather this is a case of\n\"payment of interest\" by a co-operative society to “Another Co-\noperative Society” which squarely falls in TDS

MADAN LAL,MANDI DABWALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

TDS claim of Rs.78,063/- deducted under Section 194H and Rs.81,128/- under Section 194A. The ld. CIT(A) has simply

MADAN LAL,MANDI DABWALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

TDS claim of Rs.78,063/- deducted under Section 194H and Rs.81,128/- under Section 194A. The ld. CIT(A) has simply

CANARA BANK,SHIMLA vs. ITO (TDS), SHIMLA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1567 To 1570/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Canara Bank, Vs. The Ito (Tds), New Shimla Branch, Shimla बनाम Sector 2, Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Ptlc1161D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS deducted on interest payment made to FDRs / KDRs was not as per the provisions of section 194A of the I.T. Act, 1961. He, therefore

CANARA BANK,SHIMLA vs. ITO (TDS), SHIMLA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1567 To 1570/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Canara Bank, Vs. The Ito (Tds), New Shimla Branch, Shimla बनाम Sector 2, Shimla "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Ptlc1161D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS deducted on interest payment made to FDRs / KDRs was not as per the provisions of section 194A of the I.T. Act, 1961. He, therefore

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHAM INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

section 194A are not ITA Nos. 638/Chd/2015 & 249 & 250/Chd/2015-- Sh. Sukham Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Chandigarh 31 applicable. In view of this, the asseseee was not liable to deduct TDS

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHAM INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

section 194A are not ITA Nos. 638/Chd/2015 & 249 & 250/Chd/2015-- Sh. Sukham Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Chandigarh 31 applicable. In view of this, the asseseee was not liable to deduct TDS

ITO (TDS-1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

section 194A are not ITA Nos. 638/Chd/2015 & 249 & 250/Chd/2015-- Sh. Sukham Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Chandigarh 31 applicable. In view of this, the asseseee was not liable to deduct TDS

ITO, W-6(1), MOHALI vs. SH. NIRANKAR SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15

TDS as per the provisions of section 194A of the Act on the interest payment made by the assessee to Punjab

CANARA BANK,RAMPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SHIMLA

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS deducted on the interest payments made on FDRs/KDRs was not as per the provisions of section 194A of the Income

CANARA BANK,RAMPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SHIMLA

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS deducted on the interest payments made on FDRs/KDRs was not as per the provisions of section 194A of the Income

THE MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK,SHIMLA vs. ITO, TDS, SHIMLA

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

TDS in accordance with the provisions of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the interest paid to various

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is

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

TDS was not deducted on the interest paid to M/s Conquer Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd. and M/s Fortune India Constructions Ltd. 6.1 The assessee, in reply, submitted copy of Form 26A relating to M/s Conquer Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Conquer Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd. and M/s Fortune India Constructions

ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHAM INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1229/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Acit, Circle 2(1), M/S Sukham Infrastructure Pvt बनाम Ltd., Sco 123-124, 3Rd Floor, Chandigarh Sector 17-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajcs5706M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS as per the provisions of section 194A and 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on payment

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., PANCHKULA

In the result, we upheld the

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

TDS under section 194A of the Act. Hence, the provision so made was also held disallowable under section 40(a)(ia)of the Act and this

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

TDS) (388 ITR 343) d. (Guj. HC) held that “14……However, since the amount paid under section 28 of the Act of 1894 forms part of the compensation and not interest, the second respondent was not justified in deducting tax at source under section 194A

RAKESH KUMAR,JAGADHRI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

TDS) (388 ITR 343) d. (Guj. HC) held that “14……However, since the amount paid under section 28 of the Act of 1894 forms part of the compensation and not interest, the second respondent was not justified in deducting tax at source under section 194A

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

TDS) (388 ITR 343) d. (Guj. HC) held that “14……However, since the amount paid under section 28 of the Act of 1894 forms part of the compensation and not interest, the second respondent was not justified in deducting tax at source under section 194A