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 was already deducted at the time of payment to the landowner; no purchase by the assessee triggering s. 194-IA. The Ld. AR had also filed the written submission and has submitted the following legal objections in support of the case of the assessee: 1. Mechanical and Arbitrary Invocation of Section 263 Without Independent or Minimal Enquiry

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

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

TDS) [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016 (placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon’ble Court reproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose in the following terms: 11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that the above decision has been rendered prior

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

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

TDS) [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016 (placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon’ble Court reproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose in the following terms: 11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that the above decision has been rendered prior

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

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

TDS) [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016 (placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon’ble Court reproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose in the following terms: 11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that the above decision has been rendered prior

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

TDS) [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016 (placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon’ble Court reproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose in the following terms: 11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that the above decision has been rendered prior

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

TDS) [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016 (placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon’ble Court reproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose in the following terms: 11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that the above decision has been rendered prior

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

TDS) [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016 (placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon’ble Court reproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose in the following terms: 11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that the above decision has been rendered prior

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

TDS) [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016 (placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon’ble Court reproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose in the following terms: 11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that the above decision has been rendered prior

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

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

TDS) [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016 (placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon’ble Court reproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose in the following terms: 11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that the above decision has been rendered prior

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

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

TDS) [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016 (placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon’ble Court reproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose in the following terms: 11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that the above decision has been rendered prior

SH. RAMESH CHAND,JAGADHRI vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR

TDS)\n[2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016\n(placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon'ble Court\nreproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose\nin the following terms:\n11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that\nthe above decision has been

SH. RAM LAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), CHANDIGARH

TDS)\n[2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016\n(placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon'ble Court\nreproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose\nin the following terms:\n11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that\nthe above decision has been

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

TDS)\n[2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016\n(placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon'ble Court\nreproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose\nin the following terms:\n11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that\nthe above decision has been

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

TDS)\n[2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016\n(placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon'ble Court\nreproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose\nin the following terms:\n11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that\nthe above decision has been

SARVAN SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 4, AMBALA

TDS)\n[2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016\n(placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon'ble Court\nreproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose\nin the following terms:\n11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that\nthe above decision has been

JARNAIL SINGH,VILLAGE BHAGWANPUR, KALKA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

TDS)\n[2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016\n(placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon'ble Court\nreproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose\nin the following terms:\n11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that\nthe above decision has been

BALJEET KAUR,NADI MOHALLA AMBALA CITY vs. ITO WARD 1, AMBALA, AMBALA

TDS)\n[2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016\n(placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon'ble Court\nreproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose\nin the following terms:\n11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that\nthe above decision has been

JAGPAL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

TDS)\n[2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj.), SCA No. 17944 of 2015, dated 31.03.2016\n(placed at page 278 of the paper book), wherein the Hon'ble Court\nreproduced the relevant CBDT Circular and explained the legislative purpose\nin the following terms:\n11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that\nthe above decision has been