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

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

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)

9 Saraogi Vs CIT”, 67 ITR 84 (S.C) and “Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT”, 88 ITR 323 (S.C). 9.2 It was held that evidently, the assessment order was erroneous and so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to the extent of verification of purchases and examination of the applicability of Section 40A(3) against

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

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

9 Saraogi Vs CIT”, 67 ITR 84 (S.C) and “Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT”, 88 ITR 323 (S.C). 9.2 It was held that evidently, the assessment order was erroneous and so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to the extent of verification of purchases and examination of the applicability of Section 40A(3) against

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

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

9 Saraogi Vs CIT”, 67 ITR 84 (S.C) and “Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT”, 88 ITR 323 (S.C). 9.2 It was held that evidently, the assessment order was erroneous and so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to the extent of verification of purchases and examination of the applicability of Section 40A(3) against

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS, claiming exemption based on verbal assurances but failed to produce Form 26A or any supporting documentary evidence. 6 8.1 The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance relying on CBDT Circular No. 10/DV/2013 and the decision in CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate (2013) 33 taxmann.com 250 (Cal), which held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to amounts “paid” as well

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

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

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

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

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

TDS deducted has been accounted for in the assessee's income. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the said appeal. 4. Appeal on Ground No.1 is general in nature. 5. Appeal on Ground No. 2 has not been