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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

SURYA MOTORS,ABOHAR vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 302/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Surya Motors, Vs. The Dcit, Near Dav Campus, बनाम Central Circle-3, Hanuman Road, Ludhiana Abohar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadfs2727B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None ( Written Submissions ) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana (Herein Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’ ) Dated 10.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Tds Of Rs. 41157/- Relating To National Insurance Co. Ltd.

section 199 of the Act the claim 302-Chd-2023 – Surya Motors, Abohar 5 of the TCS should be granted to the assessee as the said car has been disclosed in the books of accounts of the appellant firm. The AR also stated that the partner of the firm has not claimed such amount of TCS in his return

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

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

SH. RAM LAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), CHANDIGARH

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only