ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to tax under Section 45 read with Section 48 of the Income Tax Act.” …………. 9. In the meantime, the Ld. ITO / Assessing officer vide her impugned orders dated 22.3.2012, visited the assessee with penalty of Rs. 79

SH. RAJIV GARG,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain declared Rs. 5,79,703/-) in the business income of assessee. Thereby, the income under the head profit and gains from business and profession has been computed in excess by the Rs. 14,10,297/- and recomputed the total income of the appellant at Rs.44,53,240/- as against income declared

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

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

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

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

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: 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

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

SHRI DARSHAN SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 54B 14,787,100.00 (Registry Value) Details of Investment in Agriculture Land Dated ____ Registry Value _____________________ Stamp Papers ____________ Total 30.07.12 10,792,000.00 539,600.00 11,331,600.00 30.07.12 3,070,000.00 153,500.00 3,223,500.00 06.02.13 225.000.00 7.000.00 232.000.00 Total 14.087.000.00 700,100.00 14.787.100.00 Taxable Capital Gain Nil Share of Taxable Capital Gain

SHRI BALJINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 54B 14,787,100.00 (Registry Value) Details of Investment in Agriculture Land Dated ____ Registry Value _____________________ Stamp Papers ____________ Total 30.07.12 10,792,000.00 539,600.00 11,331,600.00 30.07.12 3,070,000.00 153,500.00 3,223,500.00 06.02.13 225.000.00 7.000.00 232.000.00 Total 14.087.000.00 700,100.00 14.787.100.00 Taxable Capital Gain Nil Share of Taxable Capital Gain

SHRI DIDAR SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 54B 14,787,100.00 (Registry Value) Details of Investment in Agriculture Land Dated ____ Registry Value _____________________ Stamp Papers ____________ Total 30.07.12 10,792,000.00 539,600.00 11,331,600.00 30.07.12 3,070,000.00 153,500.00 3,223,500.00 06.02.13 225.000.00 7.000.00 232.000.00 Total 14.087.000.00 700,100.00 14.787.100.00 Taxable Capital Gain Nil Share of Taxable Capital Gain

SHRI KESAR SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 54B 14,787,100.00 (Registry Value) Details of Investment in Agriculture Land Dated ____ Registry Value _____________________ Stamp Papers ____________ Total 30.07.12 10,792,000.00 539,600.00 11,331,600.00 30.07.12 3,070,000.00 153,500.00 3,223,500.00 06.02.13 225.000.00 7.000.00 232.000.00 Total 14.087.000.00 700,100.00 14.787.100.00 Taxable Capital Gain Nil Share of Taxable Capital Gain

SHRI GURDEEP SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 54B 14,787,100.00 (Registry Value) Details of Investment in Agriculture Land Dated ____ Registry Value _____________________ Stamp Papers ____________ Total 30.07.12 10,792,000.00 539,600.00 11,331,600.00 30.07.12 3,070,000.00 153,500.00 3,223,500.00 06.02.13 225.000.00 7.000.00 232.000.00 Total 14.087.000.00 700,100.00 14.787.100.00 Taxable Capital Gain Nil Share of Taxable Capital Gain

SH. JAI PAL,JAGADHRI vs. ITO, W-3, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

capital gain on sale of agriculture land measuring 109 Kanal 7.5 marla (50% share) for a consideration of Rs. 3,75,97,656/- by holding the transfer of land in the year under consideration despite the fact that only 10% of the sale consideration was received during the year and balance 90% consideration was received on 14/08/2008

SHEO RAM,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 , YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 148 dated 13.09.2012. The AO has thereafter passed an assessment order on 30.03.2014 whereby LTCG liability was determined in the hands of the assessee. Such gain was determined at Rs.3,68,96,060/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) and ultimately it travelled upto the Tribunal vide