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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

M/S CORE METAL KRAFTS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

208 (P&H) for the proposition that merely because the assessee’s claim for expenditure was not accepted, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied; v) Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 25 Taxman.com (SC) for the proposition that a bonafide inadvertent error on the part of the assessee would not attract levy

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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

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

section\n28 or section 41 or section 59;\n53[(va) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiia) of section 28 ;]\n54[(vb) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiib) of section 28 ;]\n55[(vc) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiic) of section 28 ;]\n56[(vd)] the value of any benefit or perquisite taxable

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

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

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

Section 28 of the 1894 Act depends upon a\nclaim by the person whose land is acquired whereas interest under Section\n34 is for the delay in making payment. This vital difference needs to be kept\nin mind in deciding this matter. Interest under Section 28 is part of the amount\nof compensation whereas interest under Section 34 is only

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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

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

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

208 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajbir Singh बनाम The ITO Vill: Garhi Banjara, PO: Udhamgarh Ward-3 Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVKPS5760C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 245/Chd

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

208 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajbir Singh बनाम The ITO Vill: Garhi Banjara, PO: Udhamgarh Ward-3 Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVKPS5760C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 245/Chd

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

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

208 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajbir Singh बनाम The ITO Vill: Garhi Banjara, PO: Udhamgarh Ward-3 Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVKPS5760C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 245/Chd

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

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

208 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajbir Singh बनाम The ITO Vill: Garhi Banjara, PO: Udhamgarh Ward-3 Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVKPS5760C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 245/Chd

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

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

208 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajbir Singh बनाम The ITO Vill: Garhi Banjara, PO: Udhamgarh Ward-3 Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVKPS5760C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 245/Chd

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

208 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajbir Singh बनाम The ITO Vill: Garhi Banjara, PO: Udhamgarh Ward-3 Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVKPS5760C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 245/Chd

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

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

208 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajbir Singh बनाम The ITO Vill: Garhi Banjara, PO: Udhamgarh Ward-3 Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVKPS5760C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 245/Chd

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

208 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajbir Singh बनाम The ITO Vill: Garhi Banjara, PO: Udhamgarh Ward-3 Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVKPS5760C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 245/Chd