CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

property of the trust for direct or indirect benefit to the persons mentioned u/s 13(3) of the Act. 5.9 Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that conspectus of decisions on the subject provides that at the time of granting registration under section 12AA(1) of the Act, only the objects and purposes are required to be seen

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

SHRI. TARSEM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house and did not arrive at the actual investment made by the assessee; d) That Assessing officer has made no enquiry in respect of property and the source of investment in purchase of property has not been quantified. ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 10 e) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

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

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

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

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

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