DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

section 36(1)(iii) is not as per law for which reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) (ii) B and A Plantations and Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 242 ITR 22 (Gauhati) (HC) 8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not as per law. He placed reliance on the decisions referred in the order of Ld. CIT(A) (supra). 7. The Ld. D/R relied on the order of AO by arguing that assessee has not filed any evidence linking that own funds have been utilised for giving the interest

AHUJA AND SONS,SHOP AT NEW DHAN MANDI vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER APPEAL, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

disallowance of TDS credit is bad in law when the receipts are part of business income and duly reflected in Form 26AS. However, there was error in the factual finding given by the Tribunal without reference to the Form 26AS of the appellant revealing the quantification of the Proportionate Turnover and TDS claim thereof. 5. On similar fact, recently

BALDEV DASS LAKHOTIA,SRI BIJAYNAGAR vs. ITO, SURATGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

disallowing the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR, due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q on the purchase value

JAGDISH RAI GOYAL,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

disallowing the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR, due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q on the purchase value

JAGDISH RAI GOYAL,HANUMANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

disallowing the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR, due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q on the purchase value

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has ducted TDS under section 194Q

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q

AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q

BOHAR SINGH,SRI KARANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q

ANU SETIYA,SADULSHAHAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH JUNCTION vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q

DARSHAN LAL KATHPAL HUF,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. AO, CPC (RNJ-W-(570((92) / ITO, WARD-1,, SRIGANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted TDS under section 194Q

AMRIT LAL JAIN,RANI vs. ITO, SUMERPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

disallowance of the claim of TDS, u/s 194Q of the Act. 2. None attended for the assessee. However, a written submission was filed on record with the request to adjudicate the appeal on the issue of allowing the TDS credit of Rs. 31,548/- claimed u/s 194Q of the Act in the return of income after considering the written submission

KRISHAN LAL OM PRAKASH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blekrishan Lal Om Prakash Shop No. 48, Nai Dhan Mandi, Padampur - 335041. Pan No. Aabfk1565H Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

disallowance of credit of TDS claim in the case of Kaccha Arahtia. Relevant part of the judgment reads as under: 7. Having heard both the sides and perusal of record, we find that AO/CPC has not allowed the full credit of the TDS due to the mismatch of total receipt in ITR and Form-26AS. In this respect, appellant

SH. HANUMAN PRASAD GOYAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, SURATGARH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavhanuman Prasad Goyal, Vs. I.T.O. Prop.-Goyal Enterprises, Ward-Suratgarh. Dhan Mandi, Gharsana. Pan No. Abvpg 7484 Q Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Adv. Revenue By Miss. Kajal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bikaner Dated 30/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By A.O. On Account Of Interest Paid To Creditors Rs. 8,89,780/-. It Was Having No Force Or Solid Base Hence It Should Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The It Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Grounds At Or Before Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

199 ITR 702 wherein it was held that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act which empowers to include in the income, that interest which was not due or collected/received by the assessee. Apart from this, the assessee also relied upon the decision in the case of B And A Plantations And Industries Ltd Vs CIT (Guwahati High

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. A/R placing reliance on the various judicial pronouncement submitted that no addition can be made either under section 41(1) or under section 68 of the Act as the AO himself did not specify the section under which he intended to make the addition. The ld. A/R further