DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

Trust, yet it was admitted fact that no search\noperation was conducted in premises of assessee - Besides, no panchnama was\ndrawn in pursuance of warrant of authorization in name of assessee in his\nindividual capacity - Whether, on facts, conditions precedent for initiating\nproceedings under section 153A against assessee in his individual status were\nnot complied with and, therefore, impugned proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

Trust, yet it was admitted fact that no search\noperation was conducted in premises of assessee - Besides, no panchnama was\ndrawn in pursuance of warrant of authorization in name of assessee in his\nindividual capacity - Whether, on facts, conditions precedent for initiating\nproceedings under section 153A against assessee in his individual status were\nnot complied with and, therefore, impugned proceedings

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

4 Assessment year 2015-16 Particular Amount (In INR) Returned Income Nil Disallowance of Honorarium (Rs. 30,61,129/-) 1,07,39,814 and travelling and conveyance expense along with cost of vehicles (Rs. 76,78,685/-) Disallowance of Interest on Advances 13,90,153 Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (AY 6,27,75,303 2010-11) Disallowance of Revenue

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

4 Assessment year 2015-16 Particular Amount (In INR) Returned Income Nil Disallowance of Honorarium (Rs. 30,61,129/-) 1,07,39,814 and travelling and conveyance expense along with cost of vehicles (Rs. 76,78,685/-) Disallowance of Interest on Advances 13,90,153 Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (AY 6,27,75,303 2010-11) Disallowance of Revenue

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

4. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. ITO, Ward-1 Hoshiarpur, ITA No. 200/ASR/2010 & 336/ASR/2014 for the A.Ys 2005-06 & 2009-10 and the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in assessee

DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH vs. THE PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

4. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. ITO, Ward-1 Hoshiarpur, ITA No. 200/ASR/2010 & 336/ASR/2014 for the A.Ys 2005-06 & 2009-10 and the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in assessee

JCIT (OSD), (EXEMPTIONS), C-1, CHANDIGARH vs. PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

4. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. ITO, Ward-1 Hoshiarpur, ITA No. 200/ASR/2010 & 336/ASR/2014 for the A.Ys 2005-06 & 2009-10 and the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in assessee

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S OM SAT SANATAN GEETA BHAWAN TRUST,BARNALA vs. CIT (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 80G of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1997) 65 ITR 611. Accordingly, the application moved by the assessee for grant of approval U/s 80G of the Act was rejected. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex