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

194A.\n6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

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

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

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

194A.\n6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

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

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

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

194A.\n6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

SH. AMRIK SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

HARMALA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), NANGAL

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

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

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

ANJU,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) , MOHALI

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

SUSHMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD - 4, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

JAGPAL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBALA vs. NACHHATAR SINGH, AMBALA CANTT

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

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

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

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

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

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

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

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

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

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

Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby\ndismissed

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

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

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

AVTAR SINGH,VILLAGE MANAKPUR THAKUR DASS vs. ITO WARD-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE

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

LABH SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO 2,, PANCHKULA

194A.\n6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew