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. 37,25,543/- under section 40

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. 37,25,543/- under section 40

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. 37,25,543/- under section 40

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. 37,25,543/- under section 40

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. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2,20,71,855/-, invoking the provisions of Section 40

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. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2,20,71,855/-, invoking the provisions of Section 40

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. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2,20,71,855/-, invoking the provisions of Section 40

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. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2,20,71,855/-, invoking the provisions of Section 40

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted qua TDS made under different 13 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted qua TDS made under different 13 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं

ITO, W-2, BARNALA vs. THE TRUCK OPERATOR UNION, BARNALA

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

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthe Ito बनाम The Truck Operator Union, Ward-2, Barnala Dhanaula Road, Barnala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaat6497M

TDS deducted by the Party with whom the appellant enters in contract with regard to freight as also the details of the truck owners to whom payments have been made. Further the payment in cash more than Rs. 35,000/- per day under section 40A(3) comprise 10.31% of the total freight payments

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

section 40(a)(ia) was due to delayed deposit of TDS caused by financial constraints and that excess depreciation was claimed

MADAN LAL,MANDI DABWALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

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 (1) of section 194Q any person being a buyer who is responsible for paying any sum to any resident for purchase of any goods of the value or aggregate of such value exceed Rs. 40

MADAN LAL,MANDI DABWALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

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 (1) of section 194Q any person being a buyer who is responsible for paying any sum to any resident for purchase of any goods of the value or aggregate of such value exceed Rs. 40

M/S NIRBHAI TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-2, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1401/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2014-15

section 40(a)(ia) is curative in nature and it should be 14 1401-Chd-2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) – M/s Nirbhai Textiles Pvt Ltd, Ludhiana given retrospective operation from date of insertion of said provision i.e. with effect from assessment year 2005-06 - Held, yes [Paras 28, 30 and 31] [In favour of assessee]” III. J udgment in the case

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

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

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)

40 MS TEJ RAM HARISH CPC, Bangaluru, KUMAR Jurisdictional Assessing ADD. MANDI, SIRSA Officer, ITO Ward-1, Sirsa Haryana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABYPR2630L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 23/10/2024

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is

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

Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the above action of the CIT(A), ITD is contrary to the settled position of law that Income Tax Authorities are duty bound to compute the correct income of the assessee. 6. Apropos Ground