RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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 has to be deducted at the time of credit or payment whichever is earlier. Thus the contention of the assessee are unacceptable. 2.8 The provisions of section 195 has to be read in consonance with the provisions of section 5

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 has to be deducted at the time of credit or payment whichever is earlier. Thus the contention of the assessee are unacceptable. 2.8 The provisions of section 195 has to be read in consonance with the provisions of section 5

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 has to be deducted at the time of credit or payment whichever is earlier. Thus the contention of the assessee are unacceptable. 2.8 The provisions of section 195 has to be read in consonance with the provisions of section 5

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 has to be deducted at the time of credit or payment whichever is earlier. Thus the contention of the assessee are unacceptable. 2.8 The provisions of section 195 has to be read in consonance with the provisions of section 5

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

5)\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGHG7637F\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\n\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\n\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\n\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 486 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21\n\n15\n\nground mentioned in the respective appeals. Since

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

5)\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGHG7637F\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 486 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21\nShri Hakam Singh\nH.No. 47, Part-II, Vill. Baran\nPatiala-147001, Punjab\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard

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

5)\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGHG7637F\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 486 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21\n15\nShri Hakam Singh\nH.No. 47, Part-II, Vill. Baran\nPatiala-147001, Punjab\nबनाम\nThe

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

5)\nChandigarh\n3275/2, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGHG7637F\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 486 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21\n15\nShri Hakam Singh\nH.No. 47, Part-II, Vill. Baran\nPatiala

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

5)\nChandigarh\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 486 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21\n15\nShri Hakam Singh\nH.No. 47, Part-II, Vill. Baran\nPatiala-147001, Punjab\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4, Patiala-Punjab\nस्थायी लेखा

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

5)\nChandigarh\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 486 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21\n15\nShri Hakam Singh\nH.No. 47, Part-II, Vill. Baran\nPatiala-147001, Punjab\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CSPPS0512J\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nबनाम