THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\r\nallowed

194A(3)(v) of the Act on such\r\npayments of interest i.e. from one cooperative society to another cooperative\r\nsociety, the decision rendered therein would squarely apply in the present case\r\nfollowing which we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) in holding that the\r\nassessee is not an assessee in default under section 201(1

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\nallowed

1) of the Act and\nconsequently interest under section 201(1A) of the Act also cannot be levied\nSimilar view were held by Hon'ble ITAT Pune bench \"A\", in case of\nAbhyudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd VS/ The Income Tax Officer (TDS), 05.04.2018.\nThus in view of above submission, we are to submit that as per provisions of section

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

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

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

section 199 of the Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt chargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

section 199 of\nthe Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest\nu/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt\nforming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt\nchargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act.\n\n16\n\n4.\nBriefly the facts of the case are that

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

section 199 of\nthe Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest\nu/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt\nforming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt\nchargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act.\n17\n4.\nBriefly the facts of the case are that the assessee

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

section 199 of\nthe Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest\nu/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt\nforming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt\nchargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act.\n4.\nBriefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

section 199 of\nthe Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest\nu/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt\nforming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt\nchargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act.\n4.\nBriefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

section 199 of\nthe Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest\nu/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt\nforming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt\nchargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act.\n16\n4.\nBriefly the facts of the case are that the assessee

RAGHBIR SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-1(3), CHANDIGARH

section 199 of\nthe Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest\nu/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt\nforming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt\nchargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act.\n4.\nBriefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri

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

section 199 of\nthe Act, which is not relevant to determine nature of receipt of interest\nu/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as to whether it is a capital receipt\nforming part of enhanced compensation or a revenue receipt\nchargeable u/s 56(viii) of the Act.\n4.\nBriefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri