BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had examined this claim and determined that the assessee’s reliance on section 10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had examined this claim and determined that the assessee’s reliance on section 10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had examined this claim and determined that the assessee’s reliance on section 10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

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

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

28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had examined this claim and determined that the assessee’s reliance on section 10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

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

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

28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had examined this claim and determined that the assessee’s reliance on section 10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

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

28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had examined this claim and determined that the assessee’s reliance on section 10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

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

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

28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had examined this claim and determined that the assessee’s reliance on section 10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

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

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

28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had examined this claim and determined that the assessee’s reliance on section 10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

HARMALA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), NANGAL

28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under\nSection 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had\nexamined this claim and determined that the assessee's reliance on section\n10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

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

28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under\nSection 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had\nexamined this claim and determined that the assessee's reliance on section\n10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

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

28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under\nSection 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had\nexamined this claim and determined that the assessee's reliance on section\n10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

SH. RAMESH CHAND,JAGADHRI vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR

28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under\nSection 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had\nexamined this claim and determined that the assessee's reliance on section\n10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

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

28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under\nSection 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had\nexamined this claim and determined that the assessee's reliance on section\n10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

AJAY KUMAR,FATEHABAD, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD, HARYANA

28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under\nSection 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had\nexamined this claim and determined that the assessee's reliance on section\n10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

SH. AMRIK SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under\nSection 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had\nexamined this claim and determined that the assessee's reliance on section\n10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

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

28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under\nSection 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had\nexamined this claim and determined that the assessee's reliance on section\n10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

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

28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under\nSection 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had\nexamined this claim and determined that the assessee's reliance on section\n10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains

RAJBIR SINGH,VILL. GARHI BANJARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is exempt under\nSection 10(37). The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had\nexamined this claim and determined that the assessee's reliance on section\n10(37) was misplaced, as that provision applies to capital gains