M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise