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

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

viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

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

viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

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

viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

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

viii) provides a specific statutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and interest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already reproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from\nother sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and\ninterest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already\nreproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from\nother sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and\ninterest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already\nreproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from\nother sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and\ninterest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already\nreproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from\nother sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and\ninterest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already\nreproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from\nother sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and\ninterest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already\nreproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from\nother sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and\ninterest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already\nreproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby\ndismissed

viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from\nother sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and\ninterest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already\nreproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

RAMKARAN ,PANCHKULA vs. NFAC, DELHI

Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby\ndismissed

viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from\nother sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and\ninterest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already\nreproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from\nother sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and\ninterest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already\nreproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from\nother sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and\ninterest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already\nreproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under

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

viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable in the year of receipt under the head income from\nother sources. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that interest under section 28 and\ninterest under section 34 were distinct in nature, and the AO had already\nreproduced judicial interpretation explaining that interest under