M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

TDS on the payment made. 11. The decision of the A.A.R. in the case of ‘S.K.F. Boilers & Driers P Ltd.’ (supra) is, as duly taken note of the ld. CIT(A), clearly distinguishable on facts. That decision, places reliance on the decision in the case of ‘Rajiv Malhotra’, rendered by the A.A.R., and reported at 284 ITR 564. In that

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

TDS on the payment made. 11. The decision of the A.A.R. in the case of ‘S.K.F. Boilers & Driers P Ltd.’ (supra) is, as duly taken note of the ld. CIT(A), clearly distinguishable on facts. That decision, places reliance on the decision in the case of ‘Rajiv Malhotra’, rendered by the A.A.R., and reported at 284 ITR 564. In that

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

TDS on the payment made. 11. The decision of the A.A.R. in the case of ‘S.K.F. Boilers & Driers P Ltd.’ (supra) is, as duly taken note of the ld. CIT(A), clearly distinguishable on facts. That decision, places reliance on the decision in the case of ‘Rajiv Malhotra’, rendered by the A.A.R., and reported at 284 ITR 564. In that

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

25-04-2022] "Once the assessee has initially deposited TDS and furnished Statement in Form 26QB within time, but committed a technical error while depositing TDS resulting in non-grant of TDS to transferor, compelling it to again deposit TDS along-with interest for late deposit, then, in the interests of justice and considering the fact that no loss

CHARANJEET KAUR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the addition so made and adjustment so done by the CPC is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 143 of the Act. Since there was no reply to these communication, the CPC made the adjustment. After examination of details available in ITR & TDS Statement, I find that the interest income of Rs. 52,55,261/- and TDS of Rs. 5,25

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

TDS under the said provision. 11.2 It is further humbly submitted that the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 by the Learned PCIT is mechanical, arbitrary, and legally unsustainable, having been initiated without identification of any specific error or demonstration of prejudice to the interests of the Revenue, as mandated by law and as clarified by numerous binding judicial

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-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25

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-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25

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-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25

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-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25

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-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

STYLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, TDS, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 194-IA, assessee was supposed to deduct TDS on payments exceeding Rs.50 lacs for purchase of land or building except agriculture land. This TDS was to be deducted @ 1%, thus, according to the AO, assessee failed to deduct the TDS. Therefore, he worked out a default of Rs.1,25

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

SH. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

TDS) Vs. MovaliyaBhikhu Bhai arising out of the decision of Gujarat High Court was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further reference was made to page 291 of the paper book, being the Civil Writ Petition filed by Shri Braham Prakash before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Our attention was then invited to page 339 of the paper

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

TDS) Vs. MovaliyaBhikhu Bhai arising out of the decision of Gujarat High Court was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further reference was made to page 291 of the paper book, being the Civil Writ Petition filed by Shri Braham Prakash before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Our attention was then invited to page 339 of the paper

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

TDS) Vs. MovaliyaBhikhu Bhai arising out of the decision of Gujarat High Court was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further reference was made to page 291 of the paper book, being the Civil Writ Petition filed by Shri Braham Prakash before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Our attention was then invited to page 339 of the paper

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

TDS) Vs. MovaliyaBhikhu Bhai arising out of the decision of Gujarat High Court was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further reference was made to page 291 of the paper book, being the Civil Writ Petition filed by Shri Braham Prakash before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Our attention was then invited to page 339 of the paper