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

5)(b) was taxable in the year\nof receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right\nto receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note\nthat compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under\nthe 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on date of notification\nunder

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

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt." 9. In view of the above discussion, we allow these appeals in part and set aside that portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby spread

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year\nof receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right\nto receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note\nthat compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under\nthe 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on date of notification\nunder

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year\nof receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right\nto receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note\nthat compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under\nthe 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on date of notification\nunder

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

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt." 9. In view of the above discussion, we allow these appeals in part and set aside that portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby spread

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt." 9. In view of the above discussion, we allow these appeals in part and set aside that portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby spread

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year\nof receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right\nto receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note\nthat compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under\nthe 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on date of notification\nunder

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

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt." 9. In view of the above discussion, we allow these appeals in part and set aside that portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby spread

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

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year\nof receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right\nto receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note\nthat compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under\nthe 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on date of notification\nunder

AJAY KUMAR,FATEHABAD, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD, HARYANA

B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhari- 135003, Haryana\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15\nBaljeet Kaur\n7736/4

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year\nof receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right\nto receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note\nthat compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under\nthe 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on date of notification\nunder

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year\nof receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right\nto receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note\nthat compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under\nthe 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on date of notification\nunder

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt." 9. In view of the above discussion, we allow these appeals in part and set aside that portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby spread

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

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt." 9. In view of the above discussion, we allow these appeals in part and set aside that portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby spread

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt." 9. In view of the above discussion, we allow these appeals in part and set aside that portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby spread

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year\nof receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right\nto receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note\nthat compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under\nthe 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on date of notification\nunder

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

5)(b) was taxable in the year\nof receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right\nto receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note\nthat compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under\nthe 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on date of notification\nunder