RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

7. Insofar as the second question is concerned, that is also covered by another judgment of this Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 8 SCC 412, albeit, in favour of the Revenue. In that case, the court drew distinction between the "interest" earned under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the "interest" which is under Section

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

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

7. Insofar as the second question is concerned, that is also covered by another judgment of this Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 8 SCC 412, albeit, in favour of the Revenue. In that case, the court drew distinction between the "interest" earned under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the "interest" which is under Section

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

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

7. Insofar as the second question is concerned, that is also covered by another judgment of this Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 8 SCC 412, albeit, in favour of the Revenue. In that case, the court drew distinction between the "interest" earned under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the "interest" which is under Section

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

7. Insofar as the second question is concerned, that is also covered by another judgment of this Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 8 SCC 412, albeit, in favour of the Revenue. In that case, the court drew distinction between the "interest" earned under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the "interest" which is under Section

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

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

7. Insofar as the second question is concerned, that is also covered by another judgment of this Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 8 SCC 412, albeit, in favour of the Revenue. In that case, the court drew distinction between the "interest" earned under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the "interest" which is under Section

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

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

7. Insofar as the second question is concerned, that is also covered by another judgment of this Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 8 SCC 412, albeit, in favour of the Revenue. In that case, the court drew distinction between the "interest" earned under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the "interest" which is under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

7. Insofar as the second question is concerned, that is also covered by another judgment of this Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 8 SCC 412, albeit, in favour of the Revenue. In that case, the court drew distinction between the "interest" earned under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the "interest" which is under Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAMAY SINGH,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO-WARD (5), YAMUNANAGAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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