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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

TDS proceeding is independent of the other provisions of the Act cannot be disputed, but however, what the revenue seeks to a state is that it is for the Assessing Officer to examine as to whether the receipts in the hands of the employee is a compensation for a closure or a package received as a Voluntary Retirement settlement

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)

TDS proceeding is independent of the other provisions of the Act cannot be disputed, but however, what the revenue seeks to a state is that it is for the Assessing Officer to examine as to whether the receipts in the hands of the employee is a compensation for a closure or a package received as a Voluntary Retirement settlement

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

TDS proceeding is independent of the other provisions of the Act cannot be disputed, but however, what the revenue seeks to a state is that it is for the ITA No. 519-Chd-2024 Dayal Singh, Distt. Ambala , 12 Assessing Officer to examine as to whether the receipts in the hands of the employee is a compensation for a closure

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 proceeding is independent of the other provisions of the Act cannot be disputed, but however, what the revenue seeks to a state is that it is for the Assessing Officer to examine as to whether the receipts in the hands of the employee is a compensation for a closure or a package received as a Voluntary Retirement settlement

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

20%\nof the total receipts as per provisions of section\n2(15), the tax exemption was not allowable. The\nfacts being the same, the AO should have denied the\nassessee the benefit of accumulation for the A.Y.\n2015-16 also which he had failed to do so.\nSince the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of\nIncome tax (Exemption) is based

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

20%\nof the total receipts as per provisions of section\n2(15), the tax exemption was not allowable. The\nfacts being the same, the AO should have denied the\nassessee the benefit of accumulation for the A.Y.\n2015-16 also which he had failed to do so.\nSince the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of\nIncome tax (Exemption) is based

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

20%\nof the total receipts as per provisions of section\n2(15), the tax exemption was not allowable. The\nfacts being the same, the AO should have denied the\nassessee the benefit of accumulation for the A.Y.\n2015-16 also which he had failed to do so.\nSince the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of\nIncome tax (Exemption) is based

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

20%\nof the total receipts as per provisions of section\n2(15), the tax exemption was not allowable. The\nfacts being the same, the AO should have denied the\nassessee the benefit of accumulation for the A.Y.\n2015-16 also which he had failed to do so.\nSince the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of\nIncome tax (Exemption) is based

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: 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

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