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

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

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

SARVAN SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 4, AMBALA

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being