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)

40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold limit of the amount paid

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)

40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold limit of the amount paid

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)

40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold limit of the amount paid

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

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

40A(3) are not applicable in the case of appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed a sum of Rs. 67,500 being 1/3rd of car expenses of Rs. 202,500 incurred, actually paid and claimed by the appellant on flimsy grounds without properly appreciating the details

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

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

7%; that the Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error in accepting the gross profit rate of 8% on the purchases, which were otherwise found in-genuine; that the disclosure of Rs.61.05 lacs made by the assessee in his statement pertained to the bogus purchases and was, therefore, rightly assessed by the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal; that

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

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

7%; that the Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error in accepting the gross profit rate of 8% on the purchases, which were otherwise found in-genuine; that the disclosure of Rs.61.05 lacs made by the assessee in his statement pertained to the bogus purchases and was, therefore, rightly assessed by the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal; that

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

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

7%; that the Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error in accepting the gross profit rate of 8% on the purchases, which were otherwise found in-genuine; that the disclosure of Rs.61.05 lacs made by the assessee in his statement pertained to the bogus purchases and was, therefore, rightly assessed by the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal; that

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS. Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 157/Chd/2013 for the A.Y. 2008-09: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment framed u/s 153C read with section 143(3) by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ill, Ludhiana is against law and facts

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS. Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 157/Chd/2013 for the A.Y. 2008-09: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment framed u/s 153C read with section 143(3) by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ill, Ludhiana is against law and facts

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS. Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 157/Chd/2013 for the A.Y. 2008-09: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment framed u/s 153C read with section 143(3) by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ill, Ludhiana is against law and facts

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)

TDS, as required under Chapter XVII-B. The appellant argued the payments were salary-related, but the Commissioner upheld the disallowance, confirming Section 40(a)(ia) applicability. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was levied and upheld as consequential. General grounds were not adjudicated. The appeal was dismissed on March 27, 2024, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above