SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

section 148 was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed return shown NIL capital gain as under: Compensation received: Rs. 30,11,938/- Cost of construction Rs. 5,96,980/- Year of construction 1983-84 Indexed cost 596980 x 551/116 Rs. 28,35,655/- Capital Gain: Rs. 1,76,283/- Less: Funds invested in construction

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

section 148 was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed return shown NIL capital gain as under: Compensation received: Rs. 30,11,938/- Cost of construction Rs. 5,96,980/- Year of construction 1983-84 Indexed cost 596980 x 551/116 Rs. 28,35,655/- Capital Gain: Rs. 1,76,283/- Less: Funds invested in construction

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO after verifying the claim under section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment of interest and also considering the history of the case that similar

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO after verifying the claim under section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment of interest and also considering the history of the case that similar

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO after verifying the claim under section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment of interest and also considering the history of the case that similar

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would be an anomalous result which could never have been contemplated by the legislature, since the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Gift

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 (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would be an anomalous result which could never have been contemplated by the legislature, since the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Gift

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would be an anomalous result which could never have been contemplated by the legislature, since the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Gift

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