ASSTT.EXCISE TAXATION COMMISSONER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) PALAMPUR

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

2 and Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax3. 15) In all these cases it was held that the recipient of the income on which TDS has not been deducted, even though it was liable to such deduction under the Income Tax Act, had already included that amount in its income and paid taxes

ASSTT.EXCICETAXATION COMMISSIONER NAHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

2 and Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax3. 15) In all these cases it was held that the recipient of the income on which TDS has not been deducted, even though it was liable to such deduction under the Income Tax Act, had already included that amount in its income and paid taxes

ASST.EXCISE TAXATION COMMISSIONER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) PALAMPUR

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

2 and Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax3. 15) In all these cases it was held that the recipient of the income on which TDS has not been deducted, even though it was liable to such deduction under the Income Tax Act, had already included that amount in its income and paid taxes

ASSTT.EXCISE TAXATION COMMISSIONER vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

2 and Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax3. 15) In all these cases it was held that the recipient of the income on which TDS has not been deducted, even though it was liable to such deduction under the Income Tax Act, had already included that amount in its income and paid taxes

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. M/S AMBUJA DARLA KASHLOG MANGOO

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

15 Chd/2019 in ITA No. 282/Chd/2017, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench, Chandigarh, (for short, ‘the ITAT’). 2. The case of the appellant is that the return of income for the assessment year 1998-1999 filed by the respondent-Society was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, (for short

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA vs. MS SOLAN DISTRICT TRUCK OPERATORS TRANSPORT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD DARLAGHAT THROUGH PRESIDENT

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

TDS were issued in favour of the assessee. However, interest under Section 244-A of the Act was not paid in respect of some of the refunds, while in the case of some other refunds, interest was paid for a shorter period than what was claimed by the assessee. It is averred in the appeal that the interest was refused