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 had been deducted, the AO disallowed the payments under Section 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

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 had been deducted, the AO disallowed the payments under Section 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

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 had been deducted, the AO disallowed the payments under Section 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

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 had been deducted, the AO disallowed the payments under Section 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

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. M/S S.A. SINGH & CO., BHAWANIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS @ 2% under Section 194C of the Act. 3.1 Thereafter, the proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act were initiated. During the course of proceedings, information was sought under section 133(6

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)

section 133(6), as well as the fact that the suppliers had reported the sales in their statutory records including GST returns. According to the Revenue, the discrepancy between the sales reported by the suppliers and the purchases recorded by the assessee clearly indicates that the assessee had incurred expenditure outside the books of account

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

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

6. A perusal of the record would indicate that there is no disparity of facts. The claim of the assessee qua TDS deducted under Section

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

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

6. A perusal of the record would indicate that there is no disparity of facts. The claim of the assessee qua TDS deducted under Section

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)

section 194Q are not applicable on the appellant who it merely a "Kacha Arhtiya. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Delhi has erred in not considering the act that the assessee was mainly acting as commission agent/Kacha Arhtiya and she was earning commission from the parties who has deducted TDS u/s 194Q implying that assessee has not made

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

6) of the Act, or u/s 131 thereof. It stands made out that the assessee had earned the income of Rs.7 lacs from leasing out of vehicle of the company. The copy of account of hire charges, which had been furnished before both the taxing authorities, stands filed before us also. It formed part of the books of account submitted

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

6) of the Act, or u/s 131 thereof. It stands made out that the assessee had earned the income of Rs.7 lacs from leasing out of vehicle of the company. The copy of account of hire charges, which had been furnished before both the taxing authorities, stands filed before us also. It formed part of the books of account submitted

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)

6. INX Media Pvt. Ltd. 11818 NIL 12000 TDS-272 7. 47184 1200 Nil Mega Research 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

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)

6. INX Media Pvt. Ltd. 11818 NIL 12000 TDS-272 7. 47184 1200 Nil Mega Research 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

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)

6. INX Media Pvt. Ltd. 11818 NIL 12000 TDS-272 7. 47184 1200 Nil Mega Research 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

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)

6. INX Media Pvt. Ltd. 11818 NIL 12000 TDS-272 7. 47184 1200 Nil Mega Research 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

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)

6. INX Media Pvt. Ltd. 11818 NIL 12000 TDS-272 7. 47184 1200 Nil Mega Research 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

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities