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 on such payments under Section 195 of the Act arose; ITA Nos. 1033 & 960/2017 & ITA Nos. 389 & 394/CHD/2019 8

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 on such payments under Section 195 of the Act arose; ITA Nos. 1033 & 960/2017 & ITA Nos. 389 & 394/CHD/2019 8

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 on such payments under Section 195 of the Act arose; ITA Nos. 1033 & 960/2017 & ITA Nos. 389 & 394/CHD/2019 8

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

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

Section 194H is also in order, no defects have either been pointed out by the CIT(A) nor the CPC Bengaluru. Therefore, no disallowance deserves to be made in the case of the assessee on account of TDS deducted under other heads also. 8

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

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

Section 194H is also in order, no defects have either been pointed out by the CIT(A) nor the CPC Bengaluru. Therefore, no disallowance deserves to be made in the case of the assessee on account of TDS deducted under other heads also. 8

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)

TDS under section 194Q has been wrongly deducted, the assessee cannot be penalized by denying credit of the same where she has only earned commission income on the transaction so executed on behalf of the farmers. It was further submitted that detailed written submissions were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and which has not been appreciated by him. 8

AMRIK SINGH BHULLAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

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

section 154(8) but the order was passed on 09-11-2018 i.e. after expiry of 6 months.” 2. By the remaining grounds, the assessee assails the issue on merits. 3. At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee. None was present in support thereof. However, considering the record, the ld. Sr.DR addressing

SIMMI GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT TDS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 212/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Simmi Gupta, The Dcit/Acit (Tds), 1076, Sector 37-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpg4983R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025

8. From the perusal of Section 194-1A, it is abundantly clear that in case, any payment is made by the assessee for purchase of property, then it is incumbent upon the assessee to deduct the TDS

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 on the payment made to Truck Operator Union and the order passed under section 201(1) read with 201(1A) was directed to be quashed. 7. Against the said findings and the direction of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7.1. During the course of hearing, the Ld. DR relied on the findings

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

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

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

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

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

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

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

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

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

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

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO’s analysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

8. again, one of us was a party, has also held that there is no opposition that late fee has become mandatory by incorporating section 234E in the statue. At the same time, it was held that where the lapse came about due to technical error such as wrong filing of TDS