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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: BEFORE: 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

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

ii) mismatch between\ninterest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under\n“Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and\n142(1) were issued calling for details.\n5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced\ncompensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar\n(HUDA), Haryana, pursuant

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)

II vide order dated 24.11.2016, passed in Appeal No. 541 for A.Y. 2013-14 deleted the addition. For assessment year 2012-13, addition of advance made to “M/s Zeal Exim P.Ltd.” (supra), has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order (APB 119-121) dated 28.11.2017, passed in ITA No. 922/CHD/2017, holding that from the balance sheet of the assessee

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)

II vide order dated 24.11.2016, passed in Appeal No. 541 for A.Y. 2013-14 deleted the addition. For assessment year 2012-13, addition of advance made to “M/s Zeal Exim P.Ltd.” (supra), has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order (APB 119-121) dated 28.11.2017, passed in ITA No. 922/CHD/2017, holding that from the balance sheet of the assessee

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)

II vide order dated 24.11.2016, passed in Appeal No. 541 for A.Y. 2013-14 deleted the addition. For assessment year 2012-13, addition of advance made to “M/s Zeal Exim P.Ltd.” (supra), has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order (APB 119-121) dated 28.11.2017, passed in ITA No. 922/CHD/2017, holding that from the balance sheet of the assessee

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)

II vide order dated 24.11.2016, passed in Appeal No. 541 for A.Y. 2013-14 deleted the addition. For assessment year 2012-13, addition of advance made to “M/s Zeal Exim P.Ltd.” (supra), has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order (APB 119-121) dated 28.11.2017, passed in ITA No. 922/CHD/2017, holding that from the balance sheet of the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

ii): Fresh Tangible material not required for initiating proceedings under section 148 of the Act The DR, in his submission, has submitted that there is no requirement for any 6. fresh tangible material to initiate proceedings under section 148 of the Act. In this regard, it is, at the outset, submitted that there is no dispute that no 7. fresh

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

ii) mismatch between\ninterest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under\n\"Income from Other Sources\" in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and\n142(1) were issued calling for details.\n5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced\ncompensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar\n(HUDA), Haryana, pursuant

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

ii) mismatch between\ninterest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under\n“Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and\n142(1) were issued calling for details.\n5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced\ncompensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar\n(HUDA), Haryana, pursuant

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

ii) mismatch between\ninterest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under\n“Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and\n142(1) were issued calling for details.\n5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced\ncompensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar\n(HUDA), Haryana, pursuant

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

ii) mismatch between\ninterest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under\n“Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and\n142(1) were issued calling for details.\n5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced\ncompensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar\n(HUDA), Haryana, pursuant