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(2) and section 9(1

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(2) and section 9(1

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(2) and section 9(1

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

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

1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced

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

1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced

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

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

1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced

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

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

1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced

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

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

1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced

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

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

1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

9(d) in view of the discussion\nabove.\nGARIMA SHARMA\nEXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, CHD\n5.3 A perusal of the above computation would reveal that\nassessee has gross receipts of more than Rs.9 Crore. It has\nincurred expenses of Rs.6.35 Cr on its activities. The\nassessee has worked out net surplus of Rs.2.64 Cr. The AO,\nthereafter, made disallowance of payments made

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

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology -\n- one\nabout \"enhanced amount/award\" and the other to \"interest on such\nexcess amount\" and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

1) of section 9;” 6.6 Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, provides for the disallowance of certain expenses if the tax is not deducted at source (TDS

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

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology\n-one\nabout \"enhanced amount/award\" and the other to \"interest on such\nexcess amount\" - and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which

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

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology\n- one\nabout \"enhanced amount/award\" and the other to \"interest on such\nexcess amount\" - and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which

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

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology\none\nabout \"enhanced amount/award\" and the other to \"interest on such\nexcess amount\" - and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

9 143 (3) and another under section 147/148 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act. In addition to this the assessee firm has gone through further rigours of proceedings under section 263. The Ld. AR further contended that in prior A.Y 2017-18 the assessee’s firm was scrutinized too by same officer and nothing adversial