AJAY KUMAR,FATEHABAD, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD, HARYANA

B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhari- 135003, Haryana\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15\nBaljeet Kaur\n7736/4

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

b) if any land, building or other property\" of the trust or institution is,\nor continues to be, made available for the use of any person referred to in\nsub-section (3), for any period during the previous year without charging\nadequate rent or other compensation;\n(c) if any amount is paid by way of salary, allowance or otherwise

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesseee Is Aggrieved By The Common Order Bearing Number Itba/Apl/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) Dt. 25/11/2019 Of Cit(A) Shimla, H.P. Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. 2. At The Outset The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Above Appeals Are Barred By Limitation By 02 Days.

b). Rather this is a case of “payment of interest” by a co-operative society to “Another Co- operative Society” which squarely falls in TDS exempted payment u/s 194A(3)(v). That this exemption is still intact even after the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2015. That as per the Finance Act following amendment was made in Section 194A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the amendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

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

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

b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the amendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the amendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

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

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

b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the amendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

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

b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the amendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the amendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

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

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

b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the amendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

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

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

b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the amendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

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

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

b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the amendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

1)(b) ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 56 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in the case of Smt. Kiran Singla, for assessment year 2014-15, which were duly explained by the assessee as supporting the stand taken by the assessee on the amount of Rs.3 lacs, have nowhere been rebutted by the taxing authorities

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

1)(b) ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 56 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in the case of Smt. Kiran Singla, for assessment year 2014-15, which were duly explained by the assessee as supporting the stand taken by the assessee on the amount of Rs.3 lacs, have nowhere been rebutted by the taxing authorities

GURDEEP SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

b) was\nintroduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010\n(notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment\nin CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did\nnot have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the\namendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

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

b) was\nintroduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010\n(notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment\nin CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did\nnot have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the\namendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

b) was\nintroduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010\n(notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment\nin CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did\nnot have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the\namendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

RAMKARAN ,PANCHKULA vs. NFAC, DELHI

Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby\ndismissed

b) was\nintroduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010\n(notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment\nin CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did\nnot have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the\namendment. According to the Ld. AR, this

SAT PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), , CHANDIGARH

b) was\nintroduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010\n(notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment\nin CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did\nnot have the benefit of considering the said decision while enacting the\namendment. According to the Ld. AR, this