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 ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

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 ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

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 ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

M/S KAPSONS FASHION PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1014 To 1016/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

1)(iii) of the Act. It was pointed out that additional evidences to substantiate the contention was also filed alongwith an application seeking admission of the same stating that they could not be filed earlier since the documents had got misplaced on shifting the office of the assessee. 12. Ld.Counsel contended that its arguments in the impugned ground were identical

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question which was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on inheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even the income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any business venture of the three assesseesbut

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

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

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question which was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on inheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even the income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any business venture of the three assesseesbut

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

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

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question which was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on inheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even the income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any business venture of the three assesseesbut

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

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

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question which was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on inheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even the income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any business venture of the three assesseesbut

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

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

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question which was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on inheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even the income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any business venture of the three assesseesbut

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question which was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on inheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even the income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any business venture of the three assesseesbut

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question which was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on inheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even the income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any business venture of the three assesseesbut

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

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

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question which was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on inheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even the income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any business venture of the three assesseesbut

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question which was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on inheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even the income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any business venture of the three assesseesbut

VARDHMAN POLYTEX LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT(TDS), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. Though Notices Were Issued Electronically Through The E-Filing Portal, The Assessee Contended That Such Notices Were Neither Brought To Their Knowledge Nor Received Through Any Alternative Means Such As Email Or Physical Intimation. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte. It Was Further Submitted That The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is Legal In Nature & Does Not Require Examination Of Disputed Facts; Hence, The Matter May Be Adjudicated On Merits Without The Necessity Of A Remand To The Lower Authorities.

TDS u/s 194C of the I.T Act, 1961 on the freight payments amounting to Rs.4,43,600/- made to the transporter Sh. Rohtash Kumar Banwarilal Bhadu Prop. M/s. Shree Shyam Transport Co..." The AO observed that: "The assessee submitted a declaration under Section 194C(6) but did not provide any evidence of ownership of trucks. Backend verification of ITRs

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

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question\nwhich was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on\ninheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even\nthe income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any\nbusiness venture of the three assesseesbut

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

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

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

GURDEEP SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

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