M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the assessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is exempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the assessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is exempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the assessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is exempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the assessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is exempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the assessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is exempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the assessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is exempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the assessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is exempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the assessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is exempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form 26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat the interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the assessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is exempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

section 10(37) applies only to capital\ngains arising from transfer of agricultural land, and not to interest on delayed\npayment; that interest received on enhanced compensation is deemed to\nbe taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt; and that the assessee could\nnot reduce income in a revised return while simultaneously claiming full TDS

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form\n26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat\nthe interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the\nassessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is\nexempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form\n26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat\n17\nthe interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the\nassessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is\nexempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form\n26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat\n17\nthe interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the\nassessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is\nexempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form\n26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat\n17\nthe interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the\nassessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is\nexempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form\n26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat\nthe interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the\nassessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is\nexempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37

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

TDS deducted thereon, which was duly reflected in Form\n26AS. A show-cause notice dated 10.12.2020 was issued, proposing to treat\nPage 17\nthe interest as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) read with section 145B(1). In reply, the\nassessee reiterated that interest u/s 28 forms part of compensation and is\nexempt. The AO, however, held that section 10(37