SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

u/s 10 Rs. 21,858/- Rs. 21,858/- 5.1 The A.O. observed that during the year under consideration the assessee had received compensation for compulsory acquisition of his Agriculture and Commercial land as under: Sr. Certificate’s Nature of Date of Receipt Total TDS Net No. No. & Date Land of Compensation Deducted Compensation compensation (Rs.) (Rs.) received

SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

u/s 10 Rs. 21,858/- Rs. 21,858/- 5.1 The A.O. observed that during the year under consideration the assessee had received compensation for compulsory acquisition of his Agriculture and Commercial land as under: Sr. Certificate’s Nature of Date of Receipt Total TDS Net No. No. & Date Land of Compensation Deducted Compensation compensation (Rs.) (Rs.) received

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

rectification statements on 05/04/2018, therefore, the A.O. has again issued intimation U/s 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act. The assessee has not pointed out any mistake in issuing the intimation by the A.O. on account of computation of period of delay or quantification of the late filing fee U/s 234E of the Act. Therefore, as far as merits

KRISHAN BATRA,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD 1, AYAKAR BHAWAN SIRSA ROAD

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1546/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Krishan Batra Ito Ward 1 114A, Anaj Mandi, Fatehbad बनाम/ Vs. Manju Complex Haryana - 125050 Fatehabad – 125 050 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akgpb-9656-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. J. P. Goyal (Ca) – Ld. Ar (Virtual) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2023- 24 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysore Dated 26-09-2025 In The Matter Of A Rectification Intimation As Issued By Cpc U/S 154 On 21-06-2024. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Denial Of Tax Credit For Rs.69,012/-. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

rectification intimation u/s 154, the grounds of appeal related to passing of an order u/s 143(1). Separate appeals must be filed for different orders. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. It clearly emerges that the sole grievance of the assessee is denial of full TDS

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

TDS and TCS, the assessee has shown interest received from land acquisition at Rs. 2,79,08,506.00 and compensation received under land acquisition at Rs, 4,86,426.00, both aggregated to Rs. 2,83,94,932.00. This has been claimed exempt U/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. That as per Annexure to notice U/s

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

u/s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 12. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Pune Bench’A’ in case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK Vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS), Ghaziabad wherein

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

u/s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 12. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Pune Bench’A’ in case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK Vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS), Ghaziabad wherein

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

u/s 234E in violation of section 200(3), because assessee had furnished the statement immediately after depositing all the tax without any delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 12. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Pune Bench’A’ in case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK Vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS), Ghaziabad wherein

BIMLA DEVI,JAGADHRI vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act and granted refunds treating the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act received as part of enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and accordingly exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. (Copy of order u/s 154 in the case of Sh. Ajay Yadav and intimations in the cases

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act and granted refunds treating the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act received as part of enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and accordingly exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. (Copy of order u/s 154 in the case of Sh. Ajay Yadav and intimations in the cases

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act and granted refunds treating the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act received as part of enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and accordingly exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. (Copy of order u/s 154 in the case of Sh. Ajay Yadav and intimations in the cases

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act and granted refunds treating the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act received as part of enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and accordingly exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. (Copy of order u/s 154 in the case of Sh. Ajay Yadav and intimations in the cases

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act and granted refunds treating the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act received as part of enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and accordingly exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. (Copy of order u/s 154 in the case of Sh. Ajay Yadav and intimations in the cases

INDER KAUR,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act and granted refunds treating the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act received as part of enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and accordingly exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. (Copy of order u/s 154 in the case of Sh. Ajay Yadav and intimations in the cases

SH. GURDEEP SINGH MAHAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act and granted refunds treating the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act received as part of enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and accordingly exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. (Copy of order u/s 154 in the case of Sh. Ajay Yadav and intimations in the cases

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act and granted refunds treating the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act received as part of enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and accordingly exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. (Copy of order u/s 154 in the case of Sh. Ajay Yadav and intimations in the cases

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act and granted refunds treating the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act received as part of enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and accordingly exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. (Copy of order u/s 154 in the case of Sh. Ajay Yadav and intimations in the cases

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act and granted refunds treating the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act received as part of enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and accordingly exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. (Copy of order u/s 154 in the case of Sh. Ajay Yadav and intimations in the cases