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

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

1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However the relief as sought by the petitioners for enhancement of compensation amount with regard to the trees, buildings/structures and tubewells etc. stand declined. And subsequently, on further appeal, the Hon’ble High Court again enhanced the compensation vide order dated 20.03.2021, at page 107-108 Hon'ble High

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However the relief as sought by the petitioners for enhancement of compensation amount with regard to the trees, buildings/structures and tubewells etc. stand declined. And subsequently, on further appeal, the Hon’ble High Court again enhanced the compensation vide order dated 20.03.2021, at page 107-108 Hon'ble High

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

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

1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However the relief as sought by the petitioners for enhancement of compensation amount with regard to the trees, buildings/structures and tubewells etc. stand declined. And subsequently, on further appeal, the Hon’ble High Court again enhanced the compensation vide order dated 20.03.2021, at page 107-108 Hon'ble High

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

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

1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However the relief as sought by the petitioners for enhancement of compensation amount with regard to the trees, buildings/structures and tubewells etc. stand declined. And subsequently, on further appeal, the Hon’ble High Court again enhanced the compensation vide order dated 20.03.2021, at page 107-108 Hon'ble High

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However the relief as sought by the petitioners for enhancement of compensation amount with regard to the trees, buildings/structures and tubewells etc. stand declined. And subsequently, on further appeal, the Hon’ble High Court again enhanced the compensation vide order dated 20.03.2021, at page 107-108 Hon'ble High

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

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

1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However the relief as sought by the petitioners for enhancement of compensation amount with regard to the trees, buildings/structures and tubewells etc. stand declined. And subsequently, on further appeal, the Hon’ble High Court again enhanced the compensation vide order dated 20.03.2021, at page 107-108 Hon'ble High

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However the relief as sought by the petitioners for enhancement of compensation amount with regard to the trees, buildings/structures and tubewells etc. stand declined. And subsequently, on further appeal, the Hon’ble High Court again enhanced the compensation vide order dated 20.03.2021, at page 107-108 Hon'ble High

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)

1) concerns income deemed to accrue or arise in India, the provisions of Section 195 are to be read in consonance with these two provisions. The AO holds that since the income of the assessee non-resident is deemed to accrue or arise in India, TDS under Section 195 is mandatory. 9.3 The AO holds that according to Sections

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)

1) concerns income deemed to accrue or arise in India, the provisions of Section 195 are to be read in consonance with these two provisions. The AO holds that since the income of the assessee non-resident is deemed to accrue or arise in India, TDS under Section 195 is mandatory. 9.3 The AO holds that according to Sections

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)

1) concerns income deemed to accrue or arise in India, the provisions of Section 195 are to be read in consonance with these two provisions. The AO holds that since the income of the assessee non-resident is deemed to accrue or arise in India, TDS under Section 195 is mandatory. 9.3 The AO holds that according to Sections

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)

1) concerns income deemed to accrue or arise in India, the provisions of Section 195 are to be read in consonance with these two provisions. The AO holds that since the income of the assessee non-resident is deemed to accrue or arise in India, TDS under Section 195 is mandatory. 9.3 The AO holds that according to Sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAGHBIR SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-1(3), 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