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 ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

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 ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

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 ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

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)

26 AS 54,39,634/- 3. Credit of TDS claimed by the assessee in the return of income 1,62,441/- 4. TDS Credit as per Rule 37BA: 1/2*3 1,06,464/- 5. TDS Credit not allowed 55,977/- 4. It was submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of commission agent of agriculture produce

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

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

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

Section 189 all the proceedings are required to be instituted on the name of partners and not on the name of the Appellant. Therefore, Ld. AO had erred in initiating the assessment proceedings against the Appellant. It was also contended that CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to present its case before it. CIT(A) only

SH. RAMESH CHAND,JAGADHRI vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR

26\n46.3 Further, clause (viii) is inserted in sub-section (2) of the section 56 so as to provide\nthat income by way of interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation referred to in clause (b) of section 145A shall be assessed as\n\"income from other sources\" in the year in which it is received.\n46.4 Applicability. - This amendment

BATRA EXPORTS,FAZILKA vs. DCIT, |TDS,, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

26 (Ker.) vii) United Metal vs ITO (TDS) 137 taxmann.com 115 (Ker.) viii) Eurotech Maritime Academy (P) Ltd., vs ITO (TDS) 137 taxmann.com 63 (Ker.) That there is also one judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta Bench of the IT AT in favour of the assessee in the case of Bhaskar Roy vs ITO 193 1TD 668 (Kol. Trib.). If there

BATRA EXPORTS,FAZILKA vs. DCIT, |TDS,, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

26 (Ker.) vii) United Metal vs ITO (TDS) 137 taxmann.com 115 (Ker.) viii) Eurotech Maritime Academy (P) Ltd., vs ITO (TDS) 137 taxmann.com 63 (Ker.) That there is also one judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta Bench of the IT AT in favour of the assessee in the case of Bhaskar Roy vs ITO 193 1TD 668 (Kol. Trib.). If there

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

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

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

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, 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

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

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

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

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