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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

YOGESH CHANDER & SONS HUF,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the CPC holding that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions of the proviso to Rule 37BA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, namely (i) filing of declaration with the deductor, and (ii) reporting of tax deduction by the deductor in the name of the other person.

TDS of Rs. 308752/- as per provisions of section 199 but has wrongly rejected the claim only on the basis of procedural lapse. 5. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. 3

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

199 under Section 40(a)(ia): Disallowed 30% of Rs. 19,27,329 paid as interest to six ex-employees without TDS, as required under Chapter XVII-B. The appellant argued the payments were salary-related, but the Commissioner upheld the disallowance, confirming Section 40(a)(ia) applicability. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was levied and upheld

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding income must be offered to tax. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding income must be offered to tax. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding income must be offered to tax. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original

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

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding income must be offered to tax. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original

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

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding income must be offered to tax. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original

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

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding income must be offered to tax. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original

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

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding income must be offered to tax. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original

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

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding income must be offered to tax. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding income must be offered to tax. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original

BALJIT SINGH,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original