DAYAL SINGH,VILL FATEHPUR PO BUREWALA vs. ITO WARD-1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

Section 10(10B) of the IT Act. It was further held by the Hon’ble High court that the yardstick applicable to workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be made applicable to the officers. Therefore, under normal circumstances whatever reasoning assigned by this Court in the preceding paragraphs would apply to the employees in the workmen category

SH. MARTIN EKKA S/O SH. LALSAY EKKA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

Section 10(10B) of the IT Act. It was further held by the Hon’ble High court that the yardstick applicable to workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be made applicable to the officers. Therefore, under normal circumstances whatever reasoning assigned by this Court in the preceding paragraphs would apply to the employees in the workmen category

NARESH KUMAR KAMBOJ,ZIRAKPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

Section 10(10B) of the IT Act. It was further held by the Hon’ble High court that the yardstick applicable to workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be made applicable to the officers. Therefore, under normal circumstances whatever reasoning assigned by this Court in the preceding paragraphs would apply to the employees in the workmen category

SATINDER PAUL THROUGH L/H NEELAM SAINI,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

Section 10(10B) of the IT Act. It was further held by the Hon’ble High court that the yardstick applicable to workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be made applicable to the officers. Therefore, under normal circumstances whatever reasoning assigned by this Court in the preceding paragraphs would apply to the employees in the workmen category

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

10 as required by Sub-section 5 of Section 11 of the Act. The assessee thus having failed to follow the prescribed procedure, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,94,11,605/-. 4. The assessee, feeling aggrieved, challenged both these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’ for short). Apart from the issue of deposit

DCIT vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

10 as required by Sub-section 5 of Section 11 of the Act. The assessee thus having failed to follow the prescribed procedure, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,94,11,605/-. 4. The assessee, feeling aggrieved, challenged both these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’ for short). Apart from the issue of deposit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

10 as required by Sub-section 5 of Section 11 of the Act. The assessee thus having failed to follow the prescribed procedure, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,94,11,605/-. 4. The assessee, feeling aggrieved, challenged both these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’ for short). Apart from the issue of deposit

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

10 as required by Sub-section 5 of Section 11 of the Act. The assessee thus having failed to follow the prescribed procedure, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,94,11,605/-. 4. The assessee, feeling aggrieved, challenged both these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’ for short). Apart from the issue of deposit

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

5. Issue of Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) on purchase of Land A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal 5.1 The assessee has purchased land from HSIDC and paid amount out of the capital available to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has disallowed interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs. 13.37 Lacs

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

5. Issue of Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) on purchase of Land A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal 5.1 The assessee has purchased land from HSIDC and paid amount out of the capital available to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has disallowed interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs. 13.37 Lacs

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

5. Issue of Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) on purchase of Land A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal 5.1 The assessee has purchased land from HSIDC and paid amount out of the capital available to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has disallowed interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs. 13.37 Lacs

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

5. Issue of Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) on purchase of Land A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal 5.1 The assessee has purchased land from HSIDC and paid amount out of the capital available to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has disallowed interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs. 13.37 Lacs

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

5. Issue of Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) on purchase of Land A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal 5.1 The assessee has purchased land from HSIDC and paid amount out of the capital available to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has disallowed interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs. 13.37 Lacs

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

5. Issue of Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) on purchase of Land A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal 5.1 The assessee has purchased land from HSIDC and paid amount out of the capital available to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has disallowed interest under section 36(1)(iii) of Rs. 13.37 Lacs

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

5). The statutory Cess collected by the appellant does not\npartake the character of income, being neither voluntary contribution nor income\nfrom property held under trust, and its disbursement is not at the discretion of the\nappellant. Hence, such Cess cannot be considered for the purpose of determining\napplication or accumulation under section 11.\n2.\nConstitution of the Board

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

5). The statutory Cess collected by the appellant does not\npartake the character of income, being neither voluntary contribution nor income\nfrom property held under trust, and its disbursement is not at the discretion of the\nappellant. Hence, such Cess cannot be considered for the purpose of determining\napplication or accumulation under section 11.\n2.\nConstitution of the Board

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

5). The statutory Cess collected by the appellant does not\npartake the character of income, being neither voluntary contribution nor income\nfrom property held under trust, and its disbursement is not at the discretion of the\nappellant. Hence, such Cess cannot be considered for the purpose of determining\napplication or accumulation under section 11.\n\n2.\nConstitution of the Board

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

5). The statutory Cess collected by the appellant does not\npartake the character of income, being neither voluntary contribution nor income\nfrom property held under trust, and its disbursement is not at the discretion of the\nappellant. Hence, such Cess cannot be considered for the purpose of determining\napplication or accumulation under section 11.\n\n2.\nConstitution of the Board