SH. GANESH DASS MEHTA,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BALDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. JOGINDER SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. LAKHVINDER SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. JAGTAR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BANT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. CHADAT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BALDEV SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BALBIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. GURDEEP SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BALWINDER SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. KULDEEP SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS deducted, date of bills, details of cheques issued, etc., in such a case, he could not be held responsible for parties not appearing in person and, thus, impugned addition made under section 69C deserved to be deleted. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. (P.) Ltd [2019] 104 taxmann.com 402 (Bombay) (vii) Where sales supported

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS deducted, date of bills, details of cheques issued, etc., in such a case, he could not be held responsible for parties not appearing in person and, thus, impugned addition made under section 69C deserved to be deleted. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. (P.) Ltd [2019] 104 taxmann.com 402 (Bombay) (vii) Where sales supported

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex