COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SUTLEJ INDUSTRIES LTD

TDS and advance tax, also paid self assessment tax under Section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟). (b) On 24th April, 2002 an order was framed under Section 250/143(3) of the Act whereby a refund of Rs 66,90,474/-, earlier paid as self assessment tax by the assessee, was made. The respondent-assessee

The Motor & General Finance Ltd. etc. etc. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, New Delhi

TDS and advance tax paid by the assessee was refunded along with interest under Section 244(a) within the prescribed

M/S DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 5221 & 5222/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dcm Shriram Ltd., 5Th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. …...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacd0097R Vs Dcit, Circle-7(1), …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent C.R.Building, New Delhi.

section 244(A)(1). This question was answered as follows:- 5. In the present case, as stated above, there are two components of the tax paid by the Assessee for which the Assessee was granted refund, namely TDS

M/S DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 5221 & 5222/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dcm Shriram Ltd., 5Th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. …...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacd0097R Vs Dcit, Circle-7(1), …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent C.R.Building, New Delhi.

section 244(A)(1). This question was answered as follows:- 5. In the present case, as stated above, there are two components of the tax paid by the Assessee for which the Assessee was granted refund, namely TDS

EBNOY HOMES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 74(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 8. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance BiH’2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

DRAIPL-BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (JV),NEW DELHI vs. TDS, CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 9. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance BiH’2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

BRAHMAPUTRA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. TDS, CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 9. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance BiH’2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

SUPREME BRAHMAPUTRA (JV),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 9. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance BiH’2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

BATHLINE INDIA (PVT.) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 12. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance Bill 2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

BATHLINE INDIA (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 12. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance Bill 2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

FRANCHISE INDIA BRANDS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CPC- TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 10. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance BiH’2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

ADDITIONAL DIGP,GURGAON vs. DCIT, TDS, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 9. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance Bill 2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

TAJ INFRAHEIGHTS PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO TDS WARD, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 9. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance BiH’2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

AIRCON ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. TDS, CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 9. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance BiH’2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

GOVT. GIRLS SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL, AGROHA,HISAR vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 9. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance BiH’2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

RAJENDER SINGH,HISAR vs. ITO, WARD- 3, HISAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 10. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance BiH’2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

RAJINDRA GAGAN WINE ENTERPRISES,HISAR vs. ITO, WARD- 3, HISAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 10. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance BiH’2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

244 (Kerala) (viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmami.com 310 ( P& H) 12. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(l)(c), Memorandum to Finance Bill 2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear