M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines\n"interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses\nany interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt\nconstitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR\ndrew attention to section 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides

SH. PARGAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD -1, KAITHAL

24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines\n\"interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses\nany interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt\nconstitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR\ndrew attention to section 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines\n"interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses\nany interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt\nconstitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR\n35\ndrew attention to section 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly

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

24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines\n\"interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses\nany interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt\nconstitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR\n\n36\n\ndrew attention to section 56(2)(viii

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

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

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 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides that

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

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

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 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides that

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

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

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 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides that

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

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 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides that

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

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 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

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 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides that

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

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

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 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides that

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

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 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides that

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

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

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 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides that

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

24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines\n\"interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses\nany interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt\nconstitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR\ndrew attention to section 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly provides

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

24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines\n"interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses\nany interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt\nconstitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR\n35\ndrew attention to section 56(2)(viii) of the Act, which expressly

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

24\nenhanced compensation (which is in dispute), the same is liable to be taxed\nunder Section 45(5) of the 1961 Act. This is the scheme of Section 45(5) and\nSection 155(16) of the 1961 Act. We may clarify that even before the insertion\nof Section 45(5)(c) and Section 155(16) with effect from

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

24 of the BOCW Act, 1996 (reference supra-mentioned)\nmandates that all sums received by the Board, including cess transferred to it,\nshall be credited to the “Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare\nFund," and such fund shall be applied only for meeting expenses for the\nwelfare of workers. This statutory mandate of funds ensures that the Board\ncannot generate

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

24 of the BOCW Act, 1996 (reference supra-mentioned)\nmandates that all sums received by the Board, including cess transferred to it,\nshall be credited to the “Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare\nFund," and such fund shall be applied only for meeting expenses for the\nwelfare of workers. This statutory mandate of funds ensures that the Board\ncannot generate