SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

section 96 of the said Act. In the original return of income this compensation received was considered as taxable under Short Term Capital Gain

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

section 96 of the said Act. In the original return of income this compensation received was considered as taxable under Short Term Capital Gain

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act are fulfilled. As such, addition confirmed is unjustified. The same be deleted. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition by following the single member judgement of ITAT, Delhi Bench ignoring two member judgements of ITAT. Delhi Bench and judgements of jurisdictional High

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act are fulfilled. As such, addition confirmed is unjustified. The same be deleted. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition by following the single member judgement of ITAT, Delhi Bench ignoring two member judgements of ITAT. Delhi Bench and judgements of jurisdictional High

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act are fulfilled. As such, addition confirmed is unjustified. The same be deleted. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition by following the single member judgement of ITAT, Delhi Bench ignoring two member judgements of ITAT. Delhi Bench and judgements of jurisdictional High

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act are fulfilled. As such, addition confirmed is unjustified. The same be deleted. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition by following the single member judgement of ITAT, Delhi Bench ignoring two member judgements of ITAT. Delhi Bench and judgements of jurisdictional High

SANJAY JAIN & SONS,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act are fulfilled. As such, addition confirmed is unjustified. The same be deleted. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition by following the single member judgement of ITAT, Delhi Bench ignoring two member judgements of ITAT. Delhi Bench and judgements of jurisdictional High

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act are fulfilled. As such, addition confirmed is unjustified. The same be deleted. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition by following the single member judgement of ITAT, Delhi Bench ignoring two member judgements of ITAT. Delhi Bench and judgements of jurisdictional High

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act are fulfilled. As such, addition confirmed is unjustified. The same be deleted. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition by following the single member judgement of ITAT, Delhi Bench ignoring two member judgements of ITAT. Delhi Bench and judgements of jurisdictional High

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

96,153/- have accrued to the assessee on account of sale of shares. The assessee has claimed a deduction u/s 54F of the Act 1449-Chd-2019 Vinod Sharma, New Delhi 4 amounting to Rs.4,51,34,894/- on account of investment in a residential house. The A.O. required the assessee to submit a detailed working of the capital gains

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

96,50,000/- Long Term Capital Gain = Nil. “ That the AO took the value of the plots at Rs.2.50 crores,as per section

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA BISHNOI, PANCHKULA

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

Capital gains" was the issue identified for examination. An inquiry was started. In the meanwhile, in the light of section 96

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

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

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

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

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