A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

iv) of the Act. 16. In light of the same, we are of the considered opinion that there is no justifiable basis in holding the order so passed by the AO as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and the ld PCIT has thus erred in exercise of his jurisdiction

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

35. To sum up, interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid\non the excess amount under 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

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

35. To sum up, interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid\non the excess amount under 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

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

35. To sum up, interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid\non the excess amount under 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. To sum up, interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid\non the excess amount under 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

GURDEEP SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

35. To sum up, interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid\non the excess amount under 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

SARVAN SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 4, AMBALA

35. To sum up, interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid\non the excess amount under 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

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

35. To sum up, interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid\non the excess amount under 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

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

35. To sum up, interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid\non the excess amount under 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