NARESH KUMAR KAMBOJ,ZIRAKPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

iii) the new employer is, under the terms of such transfer or otherwise, legally not liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment, compensation on the basis that his service has been continuous and has not been interrupted by the transfer; (c) the expressions employer and workman, shall have the same meanings as in the Industrial

SH. MARTIN EKKA S/O SH. LALSAY EKKA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

iii) the new employer is, under the terms of such transfer or otherwise, legally not liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment, compensation on ITA-281/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 9 of 24 the basis that his service has been continuous and has not been interrupted by the transfer; (c) the expressions employer

DAYAL SINGH,VILL FATEHPUR PO BUREWALA vs. ITO WARD-1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

iii) the new employer is, under the terms of such transfer or otherwise, legally not liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment, compensation on the basis that his service has been continuous and has not been interrupted by the transfer; (c) the expressions employer and workman, shall have the same meanings as in the Industrial

SATINDER PAUL THROUGH L/H NEELAM SAINI,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

TDS. Accordingly, the ld.CIT (Appeals) sustained the addition made by the AO, against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 07.09.2022 in ITA No.514/CHD/2022 in the case of Deepak

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

10 the Act make it clear that remittance made to a non-resident for services rendered abroad, which services are not of the nature specified in Section 9, cannot be brought to tax in India. The ld. CIT(A) has held that incomes which are not chargeable to tax in India are not exigible under the provisions of Section

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

10 the Act make it clear that remittance made to a non-resident for services rendered abroad, which services are not of the nature specified in Section 9, cannot be brought to tax in India. The ld. CIT(A) has held that incomes which are not chargeable to tax in India are not exigible under the provisions of Section

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

10 the Act make it clear that remittance made to a non-resident for services rendered abroad, which services are not of the nature specified in Section 9, cannot be brought to tax in India. The ld. CIT(A) has held that incomes which are not chargeable to tax in India are not exigible under the provisions of Section

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

10 the Act make it clear that remittance made to a non-resident for services rendered abroad, which services are not of the nature specified in Section 9, cannot be brought to tax in India. The ld. CIT(A) has held that incomes which are not chargeable to tax in India are not exigible under the provisions of Section

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 11. The ld. AR, Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocatethereafter, placing reliance on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the judicial position, invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 11. The ld. AR, Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocatethereafter, placing reliance on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the judicial position, invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 11. The ld. AR, Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocatethereafter, placing reliance on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the judicial position, invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 11. The ld. AR, Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocatethereafter, placing reliance on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the judicial position, invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 11. The ld. AR, Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocatethereafter, placing reliance on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the judicial position, invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 11. The ld. AR, Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocatethereafter, placing reliance on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the judicial position, invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 11. The ld. AR, Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocatethereafter, placing reliance on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the judicial position, invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 11. The ld. AR, Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocatethereafter, placing reliance on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the judicial position, invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 11. The ld. AR, Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocatethereafter, placing reliance on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and the judicial position, invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only