BHUPINDER SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

SAT PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), , CHANDIGARH

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

AVTAR SINGH,VILLAGE MANAKPUR THAKUR DASS vs. ITO WARD-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

JARNAIL SINGH,VILLAGE BHAGWANPUR, KALKA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

LABH SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO 2,, PANCHKULA

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

JAGPAL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

BALJEET KAUR,NADI MOHALLA AMBALA CITY vs. ITO WARD 1, AMBALA, AMBALA

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

ANJU,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) , MOHALI

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

SH. AMRIK SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

AMRINDER SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, W-5, AMBALA

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

SH. HAKAM SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, PATIALA

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

SUSHMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD - 4, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBALA vs. NACHHATAR SINGH, AMBALA CANTT

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

RAJBIR SINGH,VILL. GARHI BANJARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

SH. KULBIR SINGH S/O SH. JAGIR SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted.\n35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961\nAct deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of\nenhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit\nin this argument. The scheme of section

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

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

32 of 2003), have been enacted. 35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act deals only with re-working, its object is not to convert the amount of enhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit in this argument. The scheme of section