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)

48,160/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section

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)

48,160/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section

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)

48,160/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section

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

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., PANCHKULA

In the result, we upheld the

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

48,177/- which is not allowable under section 36 of the Act. Further the assessee has not deducted TDS under

YOGESH CHANDER & SONS HUF,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), LUDHIANA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the CPC holding that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions of the proviso to Rule 37BA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, namely (i) filing of declaration with the deductor, and (ii) reporting of tax deduction by the deductor in the name of the other person.

TDS credit of Rs.4,57,068/–. The CPC, Bengaluru, while processing the return under section 143(1), allowed credit of Rs.1,48

PREM SINGH RAJA ,CHAMBA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

TDS, thereby satisfying the test of real income. The moot question is whether the amount paid by the buyer to Hemali Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (confirming party) constitutes consideration accruing to the assessee under section 48

SH. PREM SINGH RAJA,CHAMBA vs. PR. C.I.T. -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

TDS, thereby satisfying the test of real income. The moot question is whether the amount paid by the buyer to Hemali Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (confirming party) constitutes consideration accruing to the assessee under section 48

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

KANTA RANI,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Dt 29.11.2023 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

48-Chd-2024 – Kanta Rani, Chandigarh 3 deductor has not been deposited and therefore, the ITOWard 2(1), Chandigarh was right in withdrawing the TDS claim of Rs. 38,500/-. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, it is noted that the Assessee has given on rent premises to Mr. Rajan Batra

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)

48,000/- despite the fact that assessee has earned the exempt income of Rs. 7,12,442/- during the year under consideration. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the above action of the Ld. CIT(A), ITD is contrary to the settled position of law that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

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

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

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

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