ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act wherein the AO referring to the assessment proceedings in the case of the wife of the assessee Smt. Baldev Kaur wherein she had stated in her affidavit that the deposit in her bank account pertained to her husband, Shri Ajmer Singh who has sold his agriculture land as per the registered sale deed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital gains\"\n41\n\n48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was\ndismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279\nTaxman 74 (SC)/[2..\n49. Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

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

Capital gains\"\n48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was\ndismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279\nTaxman 74 (SC)/[2..\n49. Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit\nSingh

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

Capital gains\"\n41\n48.\nAgainst the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was\ndismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279\nTaxman 74 (SC)/[2..\n49. Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit

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

Capital gains\"\n48.\nAgainst the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was\ndismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279\nTaxman 74 (SC)/[2..\n49. Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit\nSingh

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

Capital gains\"\n48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was\ndismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279\nTaxman 74 (SC)/[2..\n49. Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit\nSingh

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

Capital gains\".\n41\n48.\nAgainst the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was\ndismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279\nTaxman 74 (SC)/[2..\n49. Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit

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

section\n28 or section 41 or section 59;\n53[(va) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiia) of section 28 ;]\n54[(vb) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiib) of section 28 ;]\n55[(vc) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiic) of section 28 ;]\n56[(vd)] the value of any benefit or perquisite taxable

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

Capital gains\"\n48. Against the abovesaid decision the SLP filed by the assessee was\ndismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court was reported in [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2021] 279\nTaxman 74 (SC)/[2..\n49. Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Inderjit\nSingh