ITO, WARD (E), CHANDIGARH vs. SANT BABA SUNDER SINGH, BARNALA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

10(23C)(iiiad) had been proposed to be denied. There is no provision in the Income Tax Act which requires to assessee to compulsory claim benefit under all section of the Act alternatively available. Moreover even the CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) dt. 11/04/1955 mandates Assessing Officer to assist tax payees in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

M/S LUDHIANA LEASING PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 241/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S Ludhiana Leasing Pvt.Ltd., बनाम The Dcit, Central Circle-Ii, #168, Sector 8, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl6365N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation and earned net gain of Rs. 16,71,42,769/- Even the Assessee has paid due capital gains tax on the said receipt, as applicable, under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Auditor of the Assessee had shown this capital gain under the Column ‘other income’. However, the Assessee in the Income Tax return deducted

BABA HIRA SINGH BHATTAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,LEHRAGAGA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 10(23C)(iiiab). Exemption was claimed by the appellant u/s 10(23C)(vi) on account of approval by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana granted vide order no. CCIT/Ldh/JB/10(23C)/ll/2015-16/2729 dt. 18.09.2015. The case of the appellant assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, notice