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

194A(3)(viia)\r\nAnd\r\n(b) denying the provisions of section 194 A(3)(v).\r\n* Non deduction of 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

194A(3)(viia)\nAnd\n(b) denying the provisions of section 194 A(3)(v).\n* Non deduction of 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 Urban Development Authority (PUDA). At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the provisions of sub clause (f) of sub clause (iii), sub-section (3

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveal that the Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the demand

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveal that the Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the demand

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveal that the Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the demand

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has framed the impugned order without granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant and therefore the order made is illegal, invalid and, vitiated order. 21. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 19 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has framed the impugned order without granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant and therefore the order made is illegal, invalid and, vitiated order. 21. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 19 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has framed the impugned order without granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant and therefore the order made is illegal, invalid and, vitiated order. 21. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 19 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed

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

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

Section 194A. The ld. CIT(A) has simply observed that corresponding income has not been offered by the assessee, however, in the submissions of the assessee, assessee has reconciled each and every figure and apprised me as to how he has included all these amounts. Both the parties have not pin pointed ITA No.918 & 919/CHD/2024 A.Y.2022-23

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

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

Section 194A. The ld. CIT(A) has simply observed that corresponding income has not been offered by the assessee, however, in the submissions of the assessee, assessee has reconciled each and every figure and apprised me as to how he has included all these amounts. Both the parties have not pin pointed ITA No.918 & 919/CHD/2024 A.Y.2022-23

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

194A. The assessee submitted that these NBFCs had assured them that no TDS was necessary due to their exemption status, but failed to produce any certificate to that effect. Based on CBDT Circular No. 10/DV/2013, which clarified that even paid amounts fall under the purview of section 40(a)(ia), the AO disallowed the entire amount

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

3 CD audit report (column 34a), you had deducted TDS of Rs. 2435095/- on payment of interest of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- under section 194A

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

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

194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in not justified in upholding the charging of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and facts. 3

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

3 of 2010 of CBDT, there was no default on the part of the assessee as per the provisions of section 194A of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was in default as the bank branch itself has admitted that it had been deducting TDS

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

3 of 2010 of CBDT, there was no default on the part of the assessee as per the provisions of section 194A of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was in default as the bank branch itself has admitted that it had been deducting TDS

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 and also relied on the CBDT Circular No. 3/10/2010 which reads as under: Sub: Tax Deduction at Source on payment of interest on time deposits under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by banks following Core- Branch Banking Solutions (CBS) software – reg. As per provisions of section 194A of the Income Tax Act 1961, 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 and also relied on the CBDT Circular No. 3/10/2010 which reads as under: Sub: Tax Deduction at Source on payment of interest on time deposits under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by banks following Core- Branch Banking Solutions (CBS) software – reg. As per provisions of section 194A of the Income Tax Act 1961, income

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)

194A by the Land Acquisition Officer while making payment of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. This assumption is also incorrect. No tax was deducted at source by the Land Acquisition Officer while disbursing the interest income to the assessee.  Once an issue has been examined during reassessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer, after due application