THE MULLANPUR GARIBDAS CO-OP MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR. CIT-II, CHANDIGARH

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

gains of business' need to be given weightage, ITA 515/CHD/2017 ITA 569/CHD/2018 & ITA 645/CHD/2019 10 attributable to one of the activities specified in section 80P(2)(a), that it had been held that these words emphasize that the income in respect of which deduction is sought must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D, Chandigarh\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard 5(5)\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGHG7637F\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 486 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21\nShri Hakam Singh\nH.No. 47, Part-II, Vill. Baran

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

D, Chandigarh\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard 5(5)\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGHG7637F\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 486 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21\nShri Hakam Singh\nH.No. 47, Part-II, Vill. Baran

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

D, Chandigarh\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard 5(5)\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGHG7637F\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 486 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21\nShri Hakam Singh\nH.No. 47, Part

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

D, Chandigarh\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard 5(5)\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGHG7637F\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 486 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21\nShri Hakam Singh\nH.No. 47, Part-II, Vill. Baran

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

D, Chandigarh\n\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\n\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 458 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nShri Hakam Singh\nH.No. 47, Part-II, Vill. Baran\nPatiala-147001, Punjab\n\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Atul Goyal

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

D, Chandigarh\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard 5(5)\nChandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGHG7637F\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by :\nShri Manpreet Singh, C.A\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 486 /Chd/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21\nShri Hakam Singh\nH.No. 47, Part-II, Vill. Baran

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

D. Kasturi Vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR-40 wherein Hon'ble High Court held that where assessee had executed agreement for transfer in respect of property and given possession to party and received consideration, doctrine of part performance as per section 53 A of Transfer of Property Act was rightly invoked; subsequently act of assessee in executing power of attorney

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

D. Kasturi Vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR-40 wherein Hon'ble High Court held that where assessee had executed agreement for transfer in respect of property and given possession to party and received consideration, doctrine of part performance as per section 53 A of Transfer of Property Act was rightly invoked; subsequently act of assessee in executing power of attorney