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

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted. 35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of enhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit in this argument. The scheme of section

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

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted. 35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of enhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit in this argument. The scheme of section

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

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted. 35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of enhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit in this argument. The scheme of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted. 35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of enhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit in this argument. The scheme of section

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

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted. 35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of enhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit in this argument. The scheme of section

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted. 35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of enhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit in this argument. The scheme of section

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted. 35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of enhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit in this argument. The scheme of section

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted. 35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of enhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit in this argument. The scheme of section

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

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

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

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

RANJEET SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD 2, AMBALA

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section