NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

SH. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

194A.\n6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

BALJIT SINGH,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

SH. SURESH PAL,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNA NAGAR

194A.\n6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

RANJEET SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD 2, AMBALA

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

SH. RAM LAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), CHANDIGARH

194A.\n6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

194A. 6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had inadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising that the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquis`ition Act, 1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, he revised the return and withdrew

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

194A. 6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had inadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising that the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquis`ition Act, 1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, he revised the return and withdrew

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

194A. 6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had inadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising that the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquis`ition Act, 1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, he revised the return and withdrew

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

194A. 6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had inadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising that the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquis`ition Act, 1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, he revised the return and withdrew

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

194A. 6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had inadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising that the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquis`ition Act, 1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, he revised the return and withdrew

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

194A. 6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had inadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising that the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquis`ition Act, 1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, he revised the return and withdrew

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

194A. 6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had inadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising that the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquis`ition Act, 1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, he revised the return and withdrew

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

194A. 6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had inadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising that the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquis`ition Act, 1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, he revised the return and withdrew

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

194A. 6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had inadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising that the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquis`ition Act, 1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, he revised the return and withdrew