SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

132(4) of the Act during the search proceedings carried out in his case, on 21.02.2014; that though the findings of such search proceedings carried out in the case of the appellant / Shri R.K. Kedia and Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah might not have been directly applicable to the facts of the present case for the year under consideration, the findings

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

132(4) of the Act during the search proceedings carried out in his case, on 21.02.2014; that though the findings of such search proceedings carried out in the case of the appellant / Shri R.K. Kedia and Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah might not have been directly applicable to the facts of the present case for the year under consideration, the findings

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

B”\nITA Nos.1648 & 1649/PUN/15, it was held as follows :-\n\"The assessee completed paper-trail by producing contract notes for\npurchase and sale of shares of PIL. Mere furnishing of contract notes etc.\ndoes not inspire any confidence in the light of facts. Test of human\nprobability should be applied and apparent should be ignored to unearth\nthe harsh reality

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

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.\n5,65,280 (50 per cent. of Rs.11,30,561) is taxable as income from other\nsources as per provisions of sections 56(2) (viii) read with 57 (iv) and section\n145A