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)

77,80 ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 50 and 81 of the APS before us also, the assessee company had filed a copy of the assessment order dated 24.12.2019, by Shri Sahil single and assessment order dated 26.12.2019, of Smt. Kiran Singla, for assessment year 2014-15, passed u/s 153A(1)(b) read with Section

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)

77,80 ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 50 and 81 of the APS before us also, the assessee company had filed a copy of the assessment order dated 24.12.2019, by Shri Sahil single and assessment order dated 26.12.2019, of Smt. Kiran Singla, for assessment year 2014-15, passed u/s 153A(1)(b) read with Section

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

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

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

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

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

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

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

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

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

Section 189 all the proceedings are required to be instituted on the name of partners and not on the name of the Appellant. Therefore, Ld. AO had erred in initiating the assessment proceedings against the Appellant. It was also contended that CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to present its case before it. CIT(A) only

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT PANCHKULA CIRCLE , PANCHKULA

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

Bench: And During The Course Of Proceedings. 3. Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The A.O. While Passing The Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’) Noticed That At The Time Of Giving Effect To The Order Of The Itat, Chandigarh Bench, Credit Of Tds

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) noticed that at the time of giving effect to the order of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 1,77

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)

77,65,510/-, which was treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 42. The contention of the assessee is that the differences arose due to commercial disputes with the said parties during the relevant financial year and that the parties had allegedly recorded excess sales in their books. It has further been submitted that the assessee

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

section 263 partly and not as a whole.] The Assessment record reveals that as per Balance Sheet (as on 31.03.2017) there were unsecured loans of Rs. 26,11,77,083.55/-and as per 3 CD audit report (column 34a), you had deducted TDS

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

77,428/-. 5. That the appellant had no place of residence or any office in India and no search had taken place and the provisions of Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

77,428/-. 5. That the appellant had no place of residence or any office in India and no search had taken place and the provisions of Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

77,428/-. 5. That the appellant had no place of residence or any office in India and no search had taken place and the provisions of Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

77,428/-. 5. That the appellant had no place of residence or any office in India and no search had taken place and the provisions of Section 153A were not applicable and the alleged notice issued U/s.l53A was unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and, therefore, the assessment made U/s.l53Ais also unjust, unlawful and bad in law. 6. That in any case