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

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

iv) 60 ITD 295 (Del) Jagjit Industries Ltd vs. ACIT v) 61 ITD 307 (Ahd) Satishbhai Jayantilal Shah vs. ACIT vi) 125 Taxation 188 (AP) CIT vs. G.K. Kabra Cooperative Ind. Estate vii) 61 ITD 317 (Mad) Sanco Trans Ltd. vs. ACIT 17. No decision contrary to the above has been cited before us. 18. In the entirety

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

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

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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 of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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 of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, 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 of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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 of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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 of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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 of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, 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 of the Income Tax Act, interest amounting to Rs. 8,91,265/- after allowing deduction @ 50% u/s 57(iv) of the Act, has not been brought to tax by the AO" is based on factually incorrect assumption, incorrect application to the provisions of law and therefore untenable. 8. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

3, Panchkula\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BICPP6360B\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nShri Rishab Gupta, C.A\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1184/Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nJagpal Singh\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nH.No. 237, Vill: Kaimbwala\nChandigarh-160103\nWard 5(5)\nChandigarh

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE BARNALA vs. LAKHVIR SINGH, GRAIN MARKET, BARNALA

3, Panchkula\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :\nShri Rishab Gupta, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1184/Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nH.No. 237, Vill: Kaimbwala\nChandigarh-160103\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard 5(5)\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BQJPS2941C\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की

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

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)

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

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)

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