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

91 taxmann.com 20 (SC), Savitri Devi v. CIT, and other connected\nmatters. Therefore, it was argued that this Tribunal is not bound to follow a\nper incurium decision. The Ld. AR emphasised that the interest received on\nenhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, cannot be taxed as “Income from other sources,” since there exists

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91

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

Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91

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

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

Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91

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

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

Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91

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

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

Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91

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

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

Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91

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

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

Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91

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

91 taxmann.com 20 (SC), Savitri Devi v. CIT, and other connected\nmatters. Therefore, it was argued that this Tribunal is not bound to follow a\nper incurium decision. The Ld. AR emphasised that the interest received on\nenhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, cannot be taxed as “Income from other sources,” since there exists

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

91 taxmann.com 20 (SC), Savitri Devi v. CIT, and other connected\nmatters. Therefore, it was argued that this Tribunal is not bound to follow a\nper incurium decision. The Ld. AR emphasised that the interest received on\nenhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, cannot be taxed as “Income from other sources,” since there exists

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

91 taxmann.com 20 (SC), Savitri Devi v. CIT, and other connected\nmatters. Therefore, it was argued that this Tribunal is not bound to follow a\nper incurium decision. The Ld. AR emphasised that the interest received on\nenhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, cannot be taxed as “Income from other sources,” since there exists

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

91 taxmann.com 20 (SC), Savitri Devi v. CIT, and other connected\nmatters. Therefore, it was argued that this Tribunal is not bound to follow a\nper incurium decision. The Ld. AR emphasised that the interest received on\nenhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, cannot be taxed as “Income from other sources,” since there exists

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

91 taxmann.com 20 (SC), Savitri Devi v. CIT, and other connected\nmatters. Therefore, it was argued that this Tribunal is not bound to follow a\nper incurium decision. The Ld. AR emphasised that the interest received on\nenhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, cannot be taxed as “Income from other sources,” since there exists

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

91 taxmann.com 20 (SC), Savitri Devi v. CIT, and other connected\nmatters. Therefore, it was argued that this Tribunal is not bound to follow a\nper incurium decision. The Ld. AR emphasised that the interest received on\nenhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, cannot be taxed as “Income from other sources,” since there exists

SH. AMRIK SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

91 taxmann.com 20 (SC), Savitri Devi v. CIT, and other connected\nmatters. Therefore, it was argued that this Tribunal is not bound to follow a\nper incurium decision. The Ld. AR emphasised that the interest received on\nenhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, cannot be taxed as “Income from other sources,” since there exists

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBALA vs. NACHHATAR SINGH, AMBALA CANTT

91 taxmann.com 20 (SC), Savitri Devi v. CIT, and other connected\nmatters. Therefore, it was argued that this Tribunal is not bound to follow a\nper incurium decision. The Ld. AR emphasised that the interest received on\nenhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, cannot be taxed as “Income from other sources,” since there exists