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

section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal obligation ;)\n(iii) the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2)\nand (3) of section 17;\n42[(iiia) any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-\nclause (iii), specifically granted

KULWANT SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 2(14)(iii)(b), one of the essential conditions of population exceeding the threshold is not satisfied and the subject agriculture land will stand excluded and cannot be classified as capital asset. In light of the same, long term capital gains

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

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

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

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

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

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

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

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

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

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

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

14. The ld. AR also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the statutory scheme wherein Section 28 of the LA Act relates to compensation determination, while Section 34 of the LAAct falls within the realm of payment mechanism. Therefore, interest awarded u/s 28 is intrinsically linked with the judicial determination of compensation, and is inseparable from

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

iii) of 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE BARNALA vs. LAKHVIR SINGH, GRAIN MARKET, BARNALA

Capital gains\"\n41\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

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

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

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name

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

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name

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

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name

ANJU,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) , MOHALI

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name

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

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name