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

14 of 1947); ……. S.10(10C) any amount received (or receivable) by an employee of:- (i) a public sector company; or ……….. (viii) such institute of management as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, [on his] [voluntary retirement or termination of his service, in accordance with any scheme or schemes or voluntary retirement

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)

14 of 1947); ……. S.10(10C) any amount received (or receivable) by an employee of:- (i) a public sector company; or ……….. (viii) such institute of management as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, [on his] [voluntary retirement or termination of his service, in accordance with any scheme or schemes or voluntary retirement

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

14 of 1947); ……. S.10(10C) any amount received (or receivable) by an employee of:- (i) a public sector company; or ……….. (viii) such institute of management as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, [on his] [voluntary retirement or termination of his service, in accordance with any scheme or schemes or voluntary retirement

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)

14,Himshikha Colony, Ward-3, Sector-2, Pinjore. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABCPP8855F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 29.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 VIRTUAL

M/S THE NABHA PRIMARY CO-OP AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.,NABHA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , MANDI GOBINDGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

TDS granted vide Circular No.4/2002 to the corporations covered under section 10(26BBB) as well. The CBDT has now clarified that there would be no requirement for tax deduction at source from payment made to corporations enjoying exemption under section 10(26BBB). The Central Board of Direct Taxes, issued Circular No. 07/2015 no. F. No. 275/50/2006 IT(B) Dated April

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

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

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

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

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

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

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

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

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

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

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal\nwith section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the\nLand Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those\n\n37\n\ndecisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that\nSection 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal\nwith section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the\nLand Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those\n36\ndecisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that\nSection 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal\nwith section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the\nLand Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those\ndecisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that\nSection 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

SH. PARGAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD -1, KAITHAL

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal\nwith section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the\nLand Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those\ndecisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that\nSection 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction