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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

36, dt. 31/07/2018. However the grounds of appeal are urged and stated. 4. We therefore after carefully perusing all the records of the case including paper book which is on record determine the following facts for purpose of adjudging and adjudicating the present appeal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Assessee had filed return

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

vi). Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843) has held as under: "Simply because the facts have been disclosed by the assessee, it does not give immunity from revisional jurisdiction which the Commissioner can exercise u/s 263 and as such even in a case where

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

RAGHBIR SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-1(3), CHANDIGARH

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being