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

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptam/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Tds-Ii, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A & M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS u/s 194C of the Act. Accordingly the assessee was held to be an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source and consequently demand was created on the assessee u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act as under: Section Demand u/s Demand u/s Total 201(1) 201(1A) 194C Rs.422489/- Rs.101197/- Rs.523686/- 194H

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptam/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Tds-Ii, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A & M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS u/s 194C of the Act. Accordingly the assessee was held to be an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source and consequently demand was created on the assessee u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act as under: Section Demand u/s Demand u/s Total 201(1) 201(1A) 194C Rs.422489/- Rs.101197/- Rs.523686/- 194H

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO TDS-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptam/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Tds-Ii, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A & M/S Bharti Airtel Limited, Vs. The A.C.I.T.(Tds), Plot No.21, I.T. Park, Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaacb2894G Tan: Ptlb10577A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS u/s 194C of the Act. Accordingly the assessee was held to be an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source and consequently demand was created on the assessee u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act as under: Section Demand u/s Demand u/s Total 201(1) 201(1A) 194C Rs.422489/- Rs.101197/- Rs.523686/- 194H

JCIT(OSD)(TDS),CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S LIBERTY SHOES LTD.,, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 268/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S Liberty Shoes Ltd., बनाम 13Th Mile Stone, Tax (Osd) (Tds) Circle Aaykar Bhawan, Sector 2 Liberty Puram, G.T. Road, Panchkula Kutail, Karnal Tan No: Rtkl00664G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS and application of sect on 194H, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) treated the benefits allowed to franchise showrooms and franchise distributors as per relationship of one person acting on behalf of other for buying and selling of goods. The concept and perception of commission and brokerage was thus envisaged by JCIT while imparting directions under section

SUNITA RANI 40 MS TEJ RAM HARISH KUMAR ADD. MANDI SIRSA ,HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BANGALURU JOA INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 SIRSA, HARYANA

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

TDS has already been deducted by these two buyers under section 194H as well however, given that TDS under section

PRIYANKA GUPTA,FIRST INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

194H has been allowed. 7. The point of dispute is for the TDS deducted u/s. 194Q i.e. deduction of tax at source on payment of certain sum for purchase of goods and as per sub- section

VIKAS MEHTA,NEW ANAJ MANDI, RANIA, SIRSA vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BANGALURU JOA INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS shown u/s 194Q of the Act and 194H of the Act. It was submitted that when the assessee is only a commission agent and not the actual seller, then provisions of section

M/S PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

194H. In the opinion of the DRP, the correct TDS section is Sec. 192 as commission for these non executive

PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

194H. In the opinion of the DRP, the correct TDS section is Sec. 192 as commission for these non executive

SHARMANJI YARNS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section-wise TDS report (194H & 194J). Regarding Commission or Brokerage, the assessee had submitted that amount of commission or brokerage

M/S CHITTOSHO MOTORS,PATIALA vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

TDS on the sales commission paid as per section 194H. The Ld. AR has also filed the details of TDS

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

194H; 6 (ii) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) "professional services" shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; (v) "rent

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS and Rs. 6,88,125/- us/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of failure to deduct tax u/s 194H of the Act. 3.2 The assessee has engaged in the business of running Cable TV Network in the state of Himachal Pradesh. During the year assessee has paid as sum of Rs. 95,72,571/- to various

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS and Rs. 6,88,125/- us/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of failure to deduct tax u/s 194H of the Act. 3.2 The assessee has engaged in the business of running Cable TV Network in the state of Himachal Pradesh. During the year assessee has paid as sum of Rs. 95,72,571/- to various

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS and Rs. 6,88,125/- us/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of failure to deduct tax u/s 194H of the Act. 3.2 The assessee has engaged in the business of running Cable TV Network in the state of Himachal Pradesh. During the year assessee has paid as sum of Rs. 95,72,571/- to various

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS and Rs. 6,88,125/- us/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of failure to deduct tax u/s 194H of the Act. 3.2 The assessee has engaged in the business of running Cable TV Network in the state of Himachal Pradesh. During the year assessee has paid as sum of Rs. 95,72,571/- to various

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS and Rs. 6,88,125/- us/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of failure to deduct tax u/s 194H of the Act. 3.2 The assessee has engaged in the business of running Cable TV Network in the state of Himachal Pradesh. During the year assessee has paid as sum of Rs. 95,72,571/- to various