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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

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

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

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

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

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

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

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

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to 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

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

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

SH. RAMESH CHAND,JAGADHRI vs. ITO, WARD-3, 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\nPage 36\ndecisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that\nSection 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

10. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 11. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 12. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that all the above appeals are barred by limitation. 3. After considering the condonation application filed

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

10. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 11. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 12. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that all the above appeals are barred by limitation. 3. After considering the condonation application filed

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

10. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 11. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 12. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that all the above appeals are barred by limitation. 3. After considering the condonation application filed

STATE BANK OF INDIA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

10. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 11. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 12. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that all the above appeals are barred by limitation. 3. After considering the condonation application filed

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

10. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 11. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 12. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that all the above appeals are barred by limitation. 3. After considering the condonation application filed

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1),, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

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

10. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 11. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 12. State Bank of India CIT ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Coimbatore 21/03/2024 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that all the above appeals are barred by limitation. 3. After considering the condonation application filed