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

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

26-41.\n3. 3. In the case of the appellant-Board, exemption under Section 12AA had\nalready been granted vide ITAT, Chandigarh order dated 23.09.2009,\nrecognizing its welfare-oriented functions.\nSubsequent to the coming into force of Section 10(46), statutory bodies\nacross India, including the present appellant, sought exemption under this\nspecial provision. Accordingly, the appellant made its application

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

26-41.\n3. 3. In the case of the appellant-Board, exemption under Section 12AA had\nalready been granted vide ITAT, Chandigarh order dated 23.09.2009,\nrecognizing its welfare-oriented functions.\nSubsequent to the coming into force of Section 10(46), statutory bodies\nacross India, including the present appellant, sought exemption under this\nspecial provision. Accordingly, the appellant made its application

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

26-41.\n\n3. 3. In the case of the appellant-Board, exemption under Section 12AA had\nalready been granted vide ITAT, Chandigarh order dated 23.09.2009,\nrecognizing its welfare-oriented functions.\n\nSubsequent to the coming into force of Section 10(46), statutory bodies\nacross India, including the present appellant, sought exemption under this\nspecial provision. Accordingly, the appellant made

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

26-41.\n\n3. 3. In the case of the appellant-Board, exemption under Section 12AA had\nalready been granted vide ITAT, Chandigarh order dated 23.09.2009,\nrecognizing its welfare-oriented functions.\n\nSubsequent to the coming into force of Section 10(46), statutory bodies\nacross India, including the present appellant, sought exemption under this\nspecial provision. Accordingly, the appellant made

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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