How many judgments cite Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector?

75 judgments on BharatTax cite Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector (224 ITR 551), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 10(37), Section 142(1), Section 28.

Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector

224 ITR 551Supreme Court of India1997#1512 most cited

What is Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector authority for?

Interest received as income on delayed payment of compensation under Sections 28 or 31 of the Land Acquisition Act is a taxable revenue receipt, chargeable to income tax under the head 'income from other sources'.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bikram Singh v Land Acquisition Collector · 224 ITR 551 · taxability of interest on delayed compensation · compulsory acquisition · Land Acquisition Act · revenue receipt · income from other sources · Section 56(2)(viii) · Section 194A · Section 2(28A) · Section 145B

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 28 Section 56(2)(viii)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 145b(1)section 56(2)(viii)section 57(iv)section 2(28a)section 145b enhanced compensation section 23(1)section 10(37)section 45(5)compulsory acquisition section 145a section 194a

Judgments citing Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector

ANAND ARUNRAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRLCE-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

…gh v. Umrao Singh, to submit that compensation would not be treated as income. Learned counsel further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Satinder Singh's case was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court when Bikram Singh's case [1997] 224 ITR 551, was decided. It is also submitted that the reasoning on which their Lordships have proceeded in the case of Satinder Singh, was also not argued before the Supreme Court in Bikram Singh's case [1997] 224 ITR 551. Not only are we not satisfied about the correctness of the submission so made, we are also of the opinion that such a plea is not open…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1227/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…rang v. CBDT, Ministry of\nFinance [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105/279 Taxman 74/462 ITR 498\n(SC); T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967]\n66 ITR 465 (SC); Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector [(1997) 10\nSCC 243/[1996] 89 Taxman 119/224 ITR 551 (SC)]; Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [(2009) 8 SCC 412/[2009]\n182 Taxman 368/315 ITR 1 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income-tax.\nFaridabad v. Chet Ram (HUF) [(2018) 15 SCC 270/[2017]\n86 taxmann.com 103/251 Taxman 4/400 ITR 23 (SC)]; Commissioner\nof Income Tax, Rajkot v. Govindbhai Mamaiya - [(2014) 16 SCC\n449/[2014] 52 t…

SATISH KHANNA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:415/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. Sivakumar, Addl. C.I.T

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

…v. Umrao Singh, , to submit that compensation would not be treated as income. Learned counsel further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Satinder Singh's case was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court when Bikram Singh's case [1997] 224 ITR 551, was decided. It is also submitted that the reasoning on which their Lordships have proceeded in the case of Satinder Singh, , was also not argued before the Supreme Court in Bikram Singh's case [1997] 224 ITR 551. Not only are we not satisfied about the correctness of the submission so made, we are also of the opinion that such a plea is not ope…

VEERASWAMY JOTHEESWARAN,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVALLUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1756/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…l Narang v. CBDT, Ministry of Finance [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105/279 Taxman 74/462 ITR 498 (SC); T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 66 ITR 465 (SC); Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector [(1997) 10 SCC 243/[1996] 89 Taxman 119/224 ITR 551 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [(2009) 8 SCC 412/[2009] 182 Taxman 368/315 ITR 1 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income-tax. Faridabad v. Chet Ram (HUF) [(2018) 15 SCC 270/[2017] 86 taxmann.com 103/251 Taxman 4/400 ITR 23 (SC)]; Commissioner of Income Таx, Rajkot v. Govindbhai Mamaiya - [(2014) 16 SCC 449/[2014] 52 taxmann…

DEVARAYA PILLAI SUBRAMANIAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Ito 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aijps-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 56(2)(viii)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,‘ए’न्यायपीठ,चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, ITO 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AIJPS-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCI…

LAGGISETTY MANOHAR KARTHIK,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 54Section 80C

…tax, the Land Acquisition Collector was not justified in deducting the tax at source. :-10-: ITA. No: 746/Chny/2025 4. The issue is no more res Integra in view of same pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector [1997] 224 ITR 551, wherein their Lordships have held that such an amount of interest on delayed payment of compensation determined under the Land Acquisition Act was a revenue receipt exigible to income-tax under Section 4 of the Act. However, the claimant would be entitled to spread over the income for the period for which payment came to be made, so as to comput…

JAI BHAGWAN,VPO BADSHAHPUR,GURGAON,HR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON,HARYANA

The appeal stands allowed and the concurrent findings of the AO and CIT(A) are hereby affirmed

ITA 3239/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrajai Bhagwan Vs. Income Tax Officer Vpo Badshahpur Income Tax Building Gurgaon Gurugram- 122001 Haryana-122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amapb8989P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 2Section 28Section 4Section 56

…ome from other sources'. 2. Back in the year 1996 on 12* September, the Hon'ble Apex Court while disposing the SLP against a decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bikram Singh and Ors. Vs Land Acquisition Collector and ors [1997] 224 ITR 551 [SC] on the issue of payment of income tax on the delayed interest amount recovered under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, interpreted the legal issue as to whether the delayed interest on the compensation paid under the LAA is chargeable to income tax under Section 4 & 5 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. After considering the provision of Section 2[28A…

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1268/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri N. K. Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

…Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC)following Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Court…

ATUL SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6055/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh.Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Sharma 207, Lawyers Vs. Acit Chamber, Delhi High Court Circle – 61 (1) New Delhi-110003 New Delhi Pan No.Aarps6964J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 57

…f calculating the damages which would be uniform across the Board for all the allottees. 9. While taking this view we are relying upon the judgement of the apex Court in Bikram Singh & Ors. us. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 475 (1997) 224 ITR 551 (SC) In the case before the apex Court the question was whetheronly interest paid to the persons whose land had been compulsorily acquired under ss. 28 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act was a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. The apex Court held that though it was termed as interest on delayed payment, it was actually a revenue receipt and t…

IDFC FIRST BANK LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1171/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1170 & 1171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd., The Pcit / Acit, [Earlier Known As Idfc Bank Ltd.], Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No.1, Chennai. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. [Pan: Aadci 6523 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 147Section 148Section 263

IDFC FIRST BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1, , CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1170/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 147Section 148Section 263

ATUL SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad & Sh. M.Balaganeshmr. Atul Sharma Vs. Ito 207, Lawyers Chamber Circle – 37(1) Delhi High Court, New Delhi New Delhi-110 003 Pan No. Aarps 6964 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Audhisthir Mehtani, Adv., Mr. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Shrey Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh:

Section 143(3)Section 57

…of calculating the damages which would be uniform across the Board for all the allottees. 9. While taking this view we are relying upon the judgement of the apex Court in Bikram Singh & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 475 (1997) 224 ITR 551 (SC). In the case before the apex Court the question was whether the interest paid to the persons whose land had been compulsorily acquired under ss. 28 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act was a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. The apex Court held that though it was termed as interest on delayed payment, it was actually a revenue receipt and…

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkende

Section 143(2)Section 40Section 43C

…or-creditor relationship between the parties. These are the necessary ingredients of section 2 (28A). 9. The scope of this provision came up for consideration before various High Courts as well as the Apex Court. In Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector [224 ITR 551(SC)], in the context of interest paid on delayed payment of compensation due under the Land Acquisition Act, the Apex Court held that such payment is a revenue receipt and that section 194A of the Income Tax Act has no application. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sahib Chits (Delhi) (Pvt.) Ltd. [(2010) 328 ITR 342 Delhi] is a case where the questio…

SAMADHAN KRUSHNA KATEKAR,RAIGAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, RAIGAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 426/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Samadhan Krushna Katekar Vs. National 214, Narmada Krishna Niwas Faceless Dhutum, Jasai Uran – 400702 Assessment Maharashtra Centre Pan : Azrpk4713E Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

…ax at source was rightly deductible as there was no difference between the interest granted 7 Samadhan Krushna Katekar u/s 28 and 34 of the LAA. This view was bolstered on the basis of an earlier judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bikram Singh (supra) 224 ITR 551 (SC). The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court, vide its judgment dated 27.08.2013 (copy at pages 69 onwards of the assessee‟s paper book), recorded the petitioner‟s contention in para 8 and that of the respondent in paras 3 read with 4. In para 5 of the judgment, their Lordships found that: „Section 34 casts obligation upon Collector to pay interest after…

KUSUM JAYRAM THAKUR,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1332/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: S/Shri CH Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 28Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viii)

…n’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon’ble High Cou…

SHRI JAYANTILAL PAGHADAL,AT CHARAN SAMDHIYALA, NEW AREA PLOT, TALUKA JETPUR, DISTRICT RAJKOT-365480 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 252/RJT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 193Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

…tly done and hence it is prayed that the addition may be confirmed and orders of authorities below may be upheld.” 6.1 Thus, the ld. D.R. submitted that in light of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bikram Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector (1997) 224 ITR 551. The interest u/s. 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. The ld. D.R. further submitted that the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Mahendra Pal Narang Vs. CBDT 120 taxmann.com 400 has also considered the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 and also the decision of Pune Tribun…

V.C.Nannapaneni vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/298/2007HC Telangana13 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 234BSection 260A

…ITA Nos.116/07&Ors Page No. 1 of 15 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on 27.02.2009 + ITA 116/2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-II ... Appellant - versus – ANAND PRAKASH ... Respondent With ITA 118/2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-II ... Appellant - versus – ANAND PRAKASH ... Respondent With ITA 119/2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-II ... Appellant - versus – ANAND PRAKASH ... Responde…

AZIZUDDIN LATIPHODDIN KAZI L/H OF DECEASED LATIPHODDIN AJIMODDIN KAZI,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 835/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Deceased Latiphoddin Vs Ward-4, Latur. Ajimoddin Kazi, . Block No.71, Kazi Nivas, Dastagir Galli, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515. Pan: Aynpk5231E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P P Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2023

Section 234ASection 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

…ondent made out a case that tax at source was rightly deductible as there was no difference between the interest granted u/s 28 and 34 of the LAA. This view was bolstered on the basis of an earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Singh (supra) 224 ITR 551 (SC). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, vide its judgment dated 27.08.2013 (copy at pages 69 onwards of the assessee’s paper book), recorded the petitioner’s contention in para 8 and that of the respondent in paras 3 read with 4. In para 5 of the judgment, their Lordships found that: ‘Section 34 casts obligation upon Collector to pay interest after…

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1807/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 80T

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 1807/Del/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bhupinder Singh Julka, Asst. Commissioner of Income 16/57, Punjabi Bagh, Vs. Tax, Circle Int Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi-110026. Delhi. PAN No: AHLPJ5819L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR) ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM This appeal by Assessee is directed against the order of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13)…

SHRIHARI HANMANT NAVRANGE,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

ITA 921/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Respondent: Shri Manojkumar Tripathi

Section 10(37)Section 147Section 28

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4