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 has to be deducted at the time of credit or payment whichever is earlier. Thus the contention of the assessee are unacceptable. 2.8 The provisions of section 195 has to be read in consonance with the provisions of section 5(2) and section 9

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 has to be deducted at the time of credit or payment whichever is earlier. Thus the contention of the assessee are unacceptable. 2.8 The provisions of section 195 has to be read in consonance with the provisions of section 5(2) and section 9

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 has to be deducted at the time of credit or payment whichever is earlier. Thus the contention of the assessee are unacceptable. 2.8 The provisions of section 195 has to be read in consonance with the provisions of section 5(2) and section 9

M/S ORBIT RESORTS (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Section 9, of the Act. He further relies on the judgment of SKF Boilers and Dryers Private Limited and has upheld the addition made by the Internet Assessing Officer. 7. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing Ld. AR argued that income

M/S ORBIT RESORTS (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 343 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम The DCIT H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh Circle 1(1), Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACO4024H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 988 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh The DCIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

Section 9, of the Act. He further relies on the judgment of SKF Boilers and Dryers Private Limited and has upheld the addition made by the Internet Assessing Officer. 7. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing Ld. AR argued that income

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)

section 201(1) on account of non deduction of TDS and interest for late payment of Rs. 9,83,310/- under

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

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

9. Under these given facts and circumstances, we find that on of the new amendment brought in section 194Q of the Act the 1 of the assessee agent has deducted TDS

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

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

9. Under these given facts and circumstances, we find that on of the new amendment brought in section 194Q of the Act the 1 of the assessee agent has deducted TDS

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 also been deducted. And since the same has been wrongly deducted the assessee has claimed the same while filing her return of income which has been wrongfully denied to her. 9

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

9;” 6.6 Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, provides for the disallowance of certain expenses if the tax is not deducted at source (TDS

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.

9. In the instant case, admittedly, there is a delay in filing the TDS statement and there is no allegation that the A.O. has violated any of the provisions of Section

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

section 9(1)(i) of the Act as discussed above: Therefore, M/s GSK Biologicals SA is chargeable to tax in India for the payment received on account of ITA No.2453/Del/2016 A.Y. 2005-06 & ITA No.532/Del/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 33 vaccine purchase from the assessee company. The appellant company has failed to deduct TDS

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 under the said provision. 11.2 It is further humbly submitted that the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 by the Learned PCIT is mechanical, arbitrary, and legally unsustainable, having been initiated without identification of any specific error or demonstration of prejudice to the interests of the Revenue, as mandated by law and as clarified by numerous binding judicial

STATE BANK OF INDIA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA, SAMB BRANCH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,AMRITSAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INDIA (IN-SITU), LUDHIANA

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE(15875),PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices