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 ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

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 ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

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 ignoring the detailed finding of the assessing officer that as per section 5 and section 9 of the Act the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if the services by the commission agents have been rendered abroad. Further since the right to receive the commission arises in India, the income of such commission agents

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. M/S S.A. SINGH & CO., BHAWANIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS at the time of receipt of payments by the assessee. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Cargo Linkers: [2009] 179 Taxman 151 (Del). We find that the said decision covers the case of the assessee in its favour. In Cargo Linkers (supra

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

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

SH. PARGAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD -1, KAITHAL

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 YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE BARNALA vs. LAKHVIR SINGH, GRAIN MARKET, BARNALA

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

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under section 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section

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

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

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

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

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

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

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from