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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

5). The statutory Cess collected by the appellant does not\npartake the character of income, being neither voluntary contribution nor income\nfrom property held under trust, and its disbursement is not at the discretion of the\nappellant. Hence, such Cess cannot be considered for the purpose of determining\napplication or accumulation under section 11.\n2.\nConstitution of the Board

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

5). The statutory Cess collected by the appellant does not\npartake the character of income, being neither voluntary contribution nor income\nfrom property held under trust, and its disbursement is not at the discretion of the\nappellant. Hence, such Cess cannot be considered for the purpose of determining\napplication or accumulation under section 11.\n\n2.\nConstitution of the Board

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

5). The statutory Cess collected by the appellant does not\npartake the character of income, being neither voluntary contribution nor income\nfrom property held under trust, and its disbursement is not at the discretion of the\nappellant. Hence, such Cess cannot be considered for the purpose of determining\napplication or accumulation under section 11.\n\n2.\nConstitution of the Board

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

TDS. 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)

TDS. 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)

TDS. 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

TDS. 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)

TDS. 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)

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

TDS. 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)

TDS. 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)

TDS. 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

11, 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act\nare required to be read strictly in the context of the enquiry relating to the\ndetermination of compensation. It was contended that, on a plain reading\nof section 28 of the LAC, the provision contemplates two distinct\ncomponents: first, the determination of the amount payable in excess of the\ncompensation awarded

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)

TDS is mandatory under Section 195, the income of the Commission Agents being deemed to accrue or arise in India. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the aspect of income deemed to accrue or arise in India, as contained in Section 5(2)(b) of the Act has to be read alongwith 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)

TDS is mandatory under Section 195, the income of the Commission Agents being deemed to accrue or arise in India. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the aspect of income deemed to accrue or arise in India, as contained in Section 5(2)(b) of the Act has to be read alongwith 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)

TDS is mandatory under Section 195, the income of the Commission Agents being deemed to accrue or arise in India. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the aspect of income deemed to accrue or arise in India, as contained in Section 5(2)(b) of the Act has to be read alongwith 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)

TDS is mandatory under Section 195, the income of the Commission Agents being deemed to accrue or arise in India. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the aspect of income deemed to accrue or arise in India, as contained in Section 5(2)(b) of the Act has to be read alongwith the provisions of Section

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

11, 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act\nare required to be read strictly in the context of the enquiry relating to the\ndetermination of compensation. It was contended that, on a plain reading\nof section 28 of the LAC, the provision contemplates two distinct\ncomponents: first, the determination of the amount payable in excess of the\ncompensation awarded