NIRMALA RANI L/H OF SH. AZAD SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -1, , PANCHKULA

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Of.

5. In Ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged the denial of claim of exemption under section 10(10B) of the Act in respect of compensation received on forced retrenchment under VRS on closure of HMT Ltd. (Tractor Division). 5.1 In this regard, during the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter is squarely covered

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

5 that the assessee was an illiterate person and was not aware of the fact that the amount received under VRS was exempt. This appeal before the Ld. NFAC was delayed by 691 days. The Ld. NFAC observed that the assessee could not demonstrate any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and proceeded to dismiss the assessee

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)

5 of 24 (i) an amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947); or (ii) such amount, not being less than fifty thousand rupees, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, whichever is less: Provided further that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

5 (a) compensation received by a workman at the time of the closing down of the undertaking in which he is employed shall be deemed to be compensation received at the time of his retrenchment; (b) compensation received by a workman, at the time of the transfer (whether by agreement or by operation of law) of the ownership or management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

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. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

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

GURDEEP SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

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