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

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, 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

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

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

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

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, 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

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

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, 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

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

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

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

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

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

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

Bench: BEFORE: 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

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

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

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

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

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

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

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

SH. BALJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, CHANDIGARH

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