BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

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

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

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

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

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

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

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

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

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

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS needs to be deducted. 5. During the hearing before us, the Ld. AR has argued based on the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The complete details of the arguments and the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: The appellant company had made payment to various parties for the above services. The expenses were

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS needs to be deducted. 5. During the hearing before us, the Ld. AR has argued based on the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The complete details of the arguments and the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: The appellant company had made payment to various parties for the above services. The expenses were

DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS needs to be deducted. 5. During the hearing before us, the Ld. AR has argued based on the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The complete details of the arguments and the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: The appellant company had made payment to various parties for the above services. The expenses were

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS needs to be deducted. 5. During the hearing before us, the Ld. AR has argued based on the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The complete details of the arguments and the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: The appellant company had made payment to various parties for the above services. The expenses were

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, 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)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, 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)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex