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

TDS as per Notification SO 3489 dt.\r\n22/10/1970 under section 194A(3) (iii) (F) which includes “ any undertaking\r\nor body

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

TDS as per Notification SO 3489 dt.\n22/10/1970 under section 194A(3) (iii) (F) which includes “ any undertaking\nor body

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

iii), sub-section (3) of section 194A of the Act. The provisions of sub section (3) requiring an 2 ITA No.433-c-2018- Shri Nirankar Singh, Mohali assessee 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

TDS. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that even the payments ware not made under a work contract or a service contract as alleged by the Assessing officer. The assessee was statutorily liable to make these payments. That there was no right to the assessee under the contract requiring the GMADA to perform any specific work

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

TDS. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that even the payments ware not made under a work contract or a service contract as alleged by the Assessing officer. The assessee was statutorily liable to make these payments. That there was no right to the assessee under the contract requiring the GMADA to perform any specific work

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

TDS. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that even the payments ware not made under a work contract or a service contract as alleged by the Assessing officer. The assessee was statutorily liable to make these payments. That there was no right to the assessee under the contract requiring the GMADA to perform any specific work

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

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)

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said action. 6. The Ld. PCIT in exercise of power conferred upon him by virtue of the above section in para 6 of the impugned order has held as under: Hence, keeping in view the above discussed facts, figures of the case and lapses

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 consumers on the term deposits etc. and created the demand of Rs. 6,18,218/- for the year under consideration. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the demand raised

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 was one of the reason recorded before issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, during the reassessment proceedings, the AO accepted the submissions of the assessee that no tax was required

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

PARAMJIT SINGH,SIRSA 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)

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