BALJEET KAUR,NADI MOHALLA AMBALA CITY vs. ITO WARD 1, AMBALA, AMBALA

13 dated 19.02.2020\n•\nSLP of Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT, New Delhi dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 04.03.2021\n•\nBraham Prakash Vs.Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 5819/Del/20 17 ITAT Delhi\nBench) dated 20.10.2023\n•\nMadhav Pandharinath. Kande vs ITO in ITAT, Pune (2022) 140 taxmann.com\n105Dt. 28/04/2022\n•\nPCIT v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) in High Court

ANJU,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) , MOHALI

13 dated 19.02.2020\n•\nSLP of Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT, New Delhi dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 04.03.2021\n•\nBraham Prakash Vs.Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 5819/Del/20 17 ITAT Delhi\nBench) dated 20.10.2023\n•\nMadhav Pandharinath. Kande vs ITO in ITAT, Pune (2022) 140 taxmann.com\n105Dt. 28/04/2022\n•\nPCIT v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) in High Court

AVTAR SINGH,VILLAGE MANAKPUR THAKUR DASS vs. ITO WARD-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE

13 dated 19.02.2020\nSLP of Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT, New Delhi dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 04.03.2021\nBraham Prakash Vs.Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 5819/Del/20 17 ITAT Delhi\nBench) dated 20.10.2023\nMadhav Pandharinath. Kande vs ITO in ITAT, Pune (2022) 140 taxmann.com\n105Dt. 28/04/2022\nPCIT v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) in High Court of Delhi

JARNAIL SINGH,VILLAGE BHAGWANPUR, KALKA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

13 dated 19.02.2020\n•\nSLP of Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT, New Delhi dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 04.03.2021\n•\nBraham Prakash Vs.Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 5819/Del/20 17 ITAT Delhi\nBench) dated 20.10.2023\n•\nMadhav Pandharinath. Kande vs ITO in ITAT, Pune (2022) 140 taxmann.com\n105Dt. 28/04/2022\n•\nPCIT v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) in High Court

BHUPINDER SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

13 dated 19.02.2020\n•\nSLP of Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT, New Delhi dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 04.03.2021\n•\nBraham Prakash Vs.Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 5819/Del/20 17 ITAT Delhi\nBench) dated 20.10.2023\n•\nMadhav Pandharinath. Kande vs ITO in ITAT, Pune (2022) 140 taxmann.com\n105Dt. 28/04/2022\n•\nPCIT v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) in High Court

SAT PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), , CHANDIGARH

13 dated 19.02.2020\n•\nSLP of Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT, New Delhi dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 04.03.2021\n•\nBraham Prakash Vs.Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 5819/Del/20 17 ITAT Delhi\nBench) dated 20.10.2023\n•\nMadhav Pandharinath. Kande vs ITO in ITAT, Pune (2022) 140 taxmann.com\n105Dt. 28/04/2022\n•\nPCIT v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) in High Court

JAGPAL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

13 dated 19.02.2020\n•\nSLP of Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT, New Delhi dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 04.03.2021\n•\nBraham Prakash Vs.Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 5819/Del/20 17 ITAT Delhi\nBench) dated 20.10.2023\n•\nMadhav Pandharinath. Kande vs ITO in ITAT, Pune (2022) 140 taxmann.com\n105Dt. 28/04/2022\n•\nPCIT v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) in High Court

AMRINDER SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, W-5, AMBALA

13 dated 19.02.2020\n•\nSLP of Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT, New Delhi dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 04.03.2021\nBraham Prakash Vs.Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 5819/Del/20 17 ITAT Delhi\nBench) dated 20.10.2023\nMadhav Pandharinath. Kande vs ITO in ITAT, Pune (2022) 140 taxmann.com\n105Dt. 28/04/2022\nPCIT v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) in High Court of Delhi

SH. KULBIR SINGH S/O SH. JAGIR SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

13 dated 19.02.2020\n•\nSLP of Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT, New Delhi dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 04.03.2021\n•\nBraham Prakash Vs.Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 5819/Del/20 17 ITAT Delhi\nBench) dated 20.10.2023\n•\nMadhav Pandharinath. Kande vs ITO in ITAT, Pune (2022) 140 taxmann.com\n105Dt. 28/04/2022\n•\nPCIT v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) in High Court

SH. PARGAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD -1, KAITHAL

section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal obligation ;)\n(iii) the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2)\nand (3) of section 17;\n42[(iiia) any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-\nclause (iii), specifically granted

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

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

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: 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