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

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section 2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section 2

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

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section 2

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section 2

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section 2

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

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section 2

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

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section 2

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

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section 2

SH. RAMESH CHAND,JAGADHRI vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR

TDS) Vs.\nMovaliyaBhikhu Bhai arising out of the decision of Gujarat High Court was\ndisposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further reference was made to\npage 291 of the paper book, being the Civil Writ Petition filed by Shri Braham\nPrakash before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Our attention was then invited to\npage 339 of the paper

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

TDS, TCS and advances taxes paid, are to be compensated for the period from the first day of assessment year to the grant of refund. While all self assessment taxes or other taxes paid are to be compensated for the periods from the date of filing of return of income or the date of payment of taxes whichever is later

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, R-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

TDS, TCS and advances taxes paid, are to be compensated for the period from the first day of assessment year to the grant of refund. While all self assessment taxes or other taxes paid are to be compensated for the periods from the date of filing of return of income or the date of payment of taxes whichever is later

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

29-30, Sector 4,\nPanchkula, Haryana\nThe DCIT\nबनाम\nExemptions,\nVs.\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAATH6995H\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\n( PHYSICAL HEARING )\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nSh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate,\nSh. Ashok Goyal, CA and\nSh. Sifatfreet Singh, CA\nराजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

29-30, Sector 4,\nPanchkula, Haryana\nThe DCIT\nExemptions,\nVs.\nChandigarh\n\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAATH6995H\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\n\n( PHYSICAL HEARING )\n\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate,\nSh. Ashok Goyal, CA and\nSh. Sifatfreet Singh, CA\nराजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR\n\nसुनवाई की

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

29-30, Sector 4,\nPanchkula, Haryana\nThe DCIT\nबनाम\nExemptions,\nVs.\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAATH6995H\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\n( PHYSICAL HEARING )\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nSh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate,\nSh. Ashok Goyal, CA and\nSh. Sifatfreet Singh, CA\nराजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

29-30, Sector 4,\nPanchkula, Haryana\nThe DCIT\nबनाम | Exemptions,\nVs.\nChandigarh\n\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAATH6995H\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\n\n( PHYSICAL HEARING )\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nSh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate,\nSh. Ashok Goyal, CA and\nSh. Sifatfreet Singh, CA\nराजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS needs to be deducted. 5. During the hearing before us, the Ld. AR has argued based on the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The complete details of the arguments and the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: The appellant company had made payment to various parties for the above services. The expenses were

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS needs to be deducted. 5. During the hearing before us, the Ld. AR has argued based on the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The complete details of the arguments and the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: The appellant company had made payment to various parties for the above services. The expenses were

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS needs to be deducted. 5. During the hearing before us, the Ld. AR has argued based on the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The complete details of the arguments and the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: The appellant company had made payment to various parties for the above services. The expenses were