ITO, W-2, BARNALA vs. THE TRUCK OPERATOR UNION, BARNALA

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

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthe Ito बनाम The Truck Operator Union, Ward-2, Barnala Dhanaula Road, Barnala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaat6497M

disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Act. 3. In response, the assessee submitted that the provision of Section 40A(3) are not applicable as the assessee is a truck union and its members collectively formed truck union to watch the interest of its members. The truck union received freight against transportation of goods by its members and the same

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)

194C; (v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9;” 6.6 Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, provides for the disallowance

M/S SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & COMPANY,AMBALA CITY vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

194C as accepted by the ld PCIT as well. In view of the same, we agree with the contention advanced by the ld AR that as far as the labour and wages payable matter is concerned, the same is beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny and that the Ld. Pr.CI T cannot initiate the proceedings

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

194C of the Act and it would also be out of the scope of ‘explanation to sub section (13) of section 80IA’. TheKoltaka Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ‘Adhunik Infrasture (P) Ltd vs JCIT’ has also held that deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be denied to an assessee merely because the assessee has been paid

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

194C of the Act was not deducted on the payments to various pay channels. During assessment proceedings the assesseefiled details in respect of the parties to whom subscriptions payment are made after deduction of tax at source and payments made without deduction of Tax at source. ITA No. 822/Chd/2024 ITA No. 825/Chd/2024 3 3.3 During the course of assessment proceedings

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

194C of the Act was not deducted on the payments to various pay channels. During assessment proceedings the assesseefiled details in respect of the parties to whom subscriptions payment are made after deduction of tax at source and payments made without deduction of Tax at source. ITA No. 822/Chd/2024 ITA No. 825/Chd/2024 3 3.3 During the course of assessment proceedings

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

194C of the Act was not deducted on the payments to various pay channels. During assessment proceedings the assesseefiled details in respect of the parties to whom subscriptions payment are made after deduction of tax at source and payments made without deduction of Tax at source. ITA No. 822/Chd/2024 ITA No. 825/Chd/2024 3 3.3 During the course of assessment proceedings

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

194C of the Act was not deducted on the payments to various pay channels. During assessment proceedings the assesseefiled details in respect of the parties to whom subscriptions payment are made after deduction of tax at source and payments made without deduction of Tax at source. ITA No. 822/Chd/2024 ITA No. 825/Chd/2024 3 3.3 During the course of assessment proceedings

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

194C of the Act was not deducted on the payments to various pay channels. During assessment proceedings the assesseefiled details in respect of the parties to whom subscriptions payment are made after deduction of tax at source and payments made without deduction of Tax at source. ITA No. 822/Chd/2024 ITA No. 825/Chd/2024 3 3.3 During the course of assessment proceedings

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

section 40(a)(ia) by holding that as no TDS was deducted out of the expenditure incurred on which TDS was deductable as per the provisions of the Act, the same was as such not an allowable expenditure. 30. Briefly stated, the AO had made disallowance of the following expenses on finding that the assessee had failed to deduct

M/S GCS COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2008-09

section 194C and 194J of the act for non-compliance and, thus, disallowance of expenditure was attracted under the provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowed as it seems that you are furnishing inaccurate particulars. Please also furnish whether you have claimed such exemption u/s 80- lA in the previous year also or not? 12. Further at para 12 of Form No.10CCB, you have shown sales tax registration No. in which it has ascertained that you were got registered with sales tax on 09.07.2009. Please

SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

Section 194C, it is held that freight payments of Rs.3,38,43,488/- shall not be allowable to the assessee as a business expenditure. Therefore, this amount of Rs.3,38,43,488/- is being disallowed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHAM INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1229/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Acit, Circle 2(1), M/S Sukham Infrastructure Pvt बनाम Ltd., Sco 123-124, 3Rd Floor, Chandigarh Sector 17-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajcs5706M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance made by the Assessing officer u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS as per the provisions of section 194A and 194C

M/S THE NABHA PRIMARY CO-OP AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.,NABHA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , MANDI GOBINDGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of deduction equal to the assessed income u/s 80 P (2) (a) (i) of the ACT. 4) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts by not giving the effect to the application filed under Rule 46 A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, regarding production of additional evidence regarding