BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done.” 15. The ld. AR submitted that the sum and substance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is that interest awarded on enhanced compensation—irrespective of whether it is described

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

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

1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done.” 15. The ld. AR submitted that the sum and substance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is that interest awarded on enhanced compensation—irrespective of whether it is described

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

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

1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done.” 15. The ld. AR submitted that the sum and substance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is that interest awarded on enhanced compensation—irrespective of whether it is described

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done.” 15. The ld. AR submitted that the sum and substance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is that interest awarded on enhanced compensation—irrespective of whether it is described

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

1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done.” 15. The ld. AR submitted that the sum and substance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is that interest awarded on enhanced compensation—irrespective of whether it is described

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

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

1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done.” 15. The ld. AR submitted that the sum and substance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is that interest awarded on enhanced compensation—irrespective of whether it is described

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

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

1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done.” 15. The ld. AR submitted that the sum and substance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is that interest awarded on enhanced compensation—irrespective of whether it is described

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

1A), or section 23(2) or under\nsection 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of Collector or the\nCourt, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of\nthe property as on date of notification.\n16. The Id. AR further submitted that the aforesaid legal position has\nsubsequently been reaffirmed

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

1A), or section 23(2) or under\nsection 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of Collector or the\nCourt, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of\nthe property as on date of notification.\n9. In view of the above discussion, we allow these appeals in part and set\naside

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

1A), or section 23(2) or under\nsection 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of Collector or the\nCourt, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of\nthe property as on date of notification.\n16.\nThe Id. AR further submitted that the aforesaid legal position has\nsubsequently been reaffirmed

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

1A), or section 23(2) or under\nsection 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of Collector or the\nCourt, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of\nthe property as on date of notification.\n16. The Id. AR further submitted that the aforesaid legal position has\nsubsequently been reaffirmed

SAMAY SINGH,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO-WARD (5), YAMUNANAGAR

1A), or section 23(2) or under\nsection 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of Collector or the\nCourt, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of\nthe property as on date of notification.\n16. The Id. AR further submitted that the aforesaid legal position has\nsubsequently been reaffirmed

RAJBIR SINGH,VILL. GARHI BANJARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

1A), or section 23(2) or under\nsection 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of Collector or the\nCourt, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of\nthe property as on date of notification.\n16.\nThe Id. AR further submitted that the aforesaid legal position has\nsubsequently been reaffirmed

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

1A), or section 23(2) or under\nsection 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of Collector or the\nCourt, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of\nthe property as on date of notification.\n16.\nThe Id. AR further submitted that the aforesaid legal position has\nsubsequently been reaffirmed

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

1A), or section 23(2) or under\nsection 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of Collector or the\nCourt, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of\nthe property as on date of notification.\n16.\nThe Id. AR further submitted that the aforesaid legal position has\nsubsequently been reaffirmed

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

1A), or section 23(2) or under\nsection 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of Collector or the\nCourt, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of\nthe property as on date of notification.\n16. The Id. AR further submitted that the aforesaid legal position has\nsubsequently been reaffirmed

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

1A), or section 23(2) or under\nsection 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of Collector or the\nCourt, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of\nthe property as on date of notification.\n16. The Id. AR further submitted that the aforesaid legal position has\nsubsequently been reaffirmed

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

1A), or section 23(2) or under\nsection 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of Collector or the\nCourt, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of\nthe property as on date of notification.\n16.\nThe Id. AR further submitted that the aforesaid legal position has\nsubsequently been reaffirmed