BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

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 34 of the said Act. The Court clarified that whereas compensation given to the assessee of the land acquired would

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

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 34 of the said Act. The Court clarified that whereas compensation given to the assessee of the land acquired would

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

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 34 of the said Act. The Court clarified that whereas compensation given to the assessee of the land acquired would

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

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

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 34 of the said Act. The Court clarified that whereas compensation given to the assessee of the land acquired would

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

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

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 34 of the said Act. The Court clarified that whereas compensation given to the assessee of the land acquired would

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

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

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 34 of the said Act. The Court clarified that whereas compensation given to the assessee of the land acquired would

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

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 34 of the said Act. The Court clarified that whereas compensation given to the assessee of the land acquired would

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

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology -\n- one\nabout \"enhanced amount/award\" and the other to \"interest on such\nexcess amount\" and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which

AVTAR SINGH,VILLAGE MANAKPUR THAKUR DASS vs. ITO WARD-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE

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

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology\none\nabout \"enhanced amount/award\" and the other to \"interest on such\nexcess amount\" and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesseee Is Aggrieved By The Common Order Bearing Number Itba/Apl/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) Dt. 25/11/2019 Of Cit(A) Shimla, H.P. Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. 2. At The Outset The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Above Appeals Are Barred By Limitation By 02 Days.

9 made on this count is liable to be deleted. The Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act was express and clear with regard to cooperative society. We hold that it is not mandatory requirement in law that such societies (depositors) should be “Members” of Cooperative Bank. Section 194A(3)(v) expressly say that “Income is credited or paid

SH. GURINDER SINGH GREWAL L/H OF PARNEET KAUR GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), CHANDIGARH

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology\none\nabout \"enhanced amount/award\" and the other to \"interest on such\nexcess amount\" — and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines

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

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology\n-one\nabout \"enhanced amount/award\" and the other to \"interest on such\nexcess amount\" - and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which

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

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology\none\nabout \"enhanced amount/award\" and the other to \"interest on such\nexcess amount\" - and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines

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

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology\n- one\nabout \"enhanced amount/award\" and the other to \"interest on such\nexcess amount\" - and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

9(d) in view of the discussion\nabove.\nGARIMA SHARMA\nEXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, CHD\n5.3 A perusal of the above computation would reveal that\nassessee has gross receipts of more than Rs.9 Crore. It has\nincurred expenses of Rs.6.35 Cr on its activities. The\nassessee has worked out net surplus of Rs.2.64 Cr. The AO,\nthereafter, made disallowance of payments made

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

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology -\none\nabout "enhanced amount/award" and the other to "interest on such\nexcess amount" and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines

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

9%. According to the\nlearned DR, the statute consciously employs separate terminology\n-- one\nabout \"enhanced amount/award\" and the other to \"interest on such\nexcess amount\" — and therefore, both elements must be treated distinctly\nin law.\n38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which