Search: house property

SH.H.P.SINGH & OTHERS,MOHALI vs. ITO (TDS-2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 237/CHANDI/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.236 To 238/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13 H.P. Singh & Others, बनाम The Ito (Tds-2), 39 West, Chandigarh Maloya, Village Bheloppur, Sector 122, Mohali "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaefh8681G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Tarandeep Singh , Advocate and Sh. A.S.Aneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. PriyankaDhar, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

194C and 194A of the Act on other grounds also. Hence, we proceed to discuss and adjudicate the issues in the following paras of this order. 10. Firstly, to see the nature of EDC charges paid by the assessee to the GMADA, whether the said payments are made on account of work contract so as to attract the provisions

SH.H.P.SINGH & OTHERS,MOHALI vs. ITO (TDS-2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.236 To 238/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13 H.P. Singh & Others, बनाम The Ito (Tds-2), 39 West, Chandigarh Maloya, Village Bheloppur, Sector 122, Mohali "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaefh8681G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Tarandeep Singh , Advocate and Sh. A.S.Aneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. PriyankaDhar, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

194C and 194A of the Act on other grounds also. Hence, we proceed to discuss and adjudicate the issues in the following paras of this order. 10. Firstly, to see the nature of EDC charges paid by the assessee to the GMADA, whether the said payments are made on account of work contract so as to attract the provisions

SH.H.P.SINGH & OTHERS,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/CHANDI/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.236 To 238/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13 H.P. Singh & Others, बनाम The Ito (Tds-2), 39 West, Chandigarh Maloya, Village Bheloppur, Sector 122, Mohali "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaefh8681G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh.Tarandeep Singh , Advocate and Sh. A.S.Aneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. PriyankaDhar, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

194C and 194A of the Act on other grounds also. Hence, we proceed to discuss and adjudicate the issues in the following paras of this order. 10. Firstly, to see the nature of EDC charges paid by the assessee to the GMADA, whether the said payments are made on account of work contract so as to attract the provisions

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHAM INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 249/CHANDI/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amitoz Singh Kamboj, CA

Section 194ASection 194CSection 201(1)

property. The assessee had paid External Development Charges (herein referred to as ‘EDC’) of Rs. 1,90,38,000/- and interest on late payment of EDC of Rs. 1,46,19,500/- to Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (herein referred to as ‘GMADA’). The Assessing officer held that tax was required to be deducted u/s 194C and u/s 194A

ITO (TDS-1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 638/CHANDI/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amitoz Singh Kamboj, CA

Section 194ASection 194CSection 201(1)

property. The assessee had paid External Development Charges (herein referred to as ‘EDC’) of Rs. 1,90,38,000/- and interest on late payment of EDC of Rs. 1,46,19,500/- to Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (herein referred to as ‘GMADA’). The Assessing officer held that tax was required to be deducted u/s 194C and u/s 194A

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SUKHAM INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Abrol, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Amitoz Singh Kamboj, CA

Section 194ASection 194CSection 201(1)

property. The assessee had paid External Development Charges (herein referred to as ‘EDC’) of Rs. 1,90,38,000/- and interest on late payment of EDC of Rs. 1,46,19,500/- to Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (herein referred to as ‘GMADA’). The Assessing officer held that tax was required to be deducted u/s 194C and u/s 194A