M/S Y.D. SOLUTIONS,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-4(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

24). Hence, it is prayed that the addition of Rs.67,99,990/- be deleted. iii) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on law and facts in confirming Rs.2,88,00,000/- as the Annual value of the property where as the actual amount of rent accrued during this period as per the Audited P & L A/c was Rs.2

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

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

M/S FATEH HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year: or…… 27.2.1 Thus, aforesaid provisions show how the annual let out value (ALV) is to be determined i.e. the sum for which value of any property might reasonably be expected

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

24,263/- each within 2 months and 12 months of the date of offer of possession 2. The offer of possession was made on 01.04.2014. 3. The possession was taken on 01.04.2014. 4. The payment of the balance amount of Rs.4,16 57,321/- was paid through RTGS on 04.04.2014. 5. A further amount of Rs.4,20,781/- was paid

SH. SURESH PAL,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNA NAGAR

Housing Board Colony,\nAmbala City-134003, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: BZWPS3748D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nNone\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nITO,\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 615 /Chd/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nWard-5(5), Chandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ARFPS1284A\nअपीलार्थी

RAVI BINDAL & MADAN LAL CHAUDHARY,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The assessee during the year earned a total rental income from house property of Rs. 14.49 lacs. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 8,68,216/- on account of interest expenditure incurred for acquisition and construction of house property as allowable under the provisions of section

ROPAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,MOHALI vs. PCIT, CHANDIGAR-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

24(a) @ 30% from the annual rental values u/s 23 from these properties. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that the definition of "Owner of house property", annual charge", etc defined under Income Tax Act, 1961 is as follows: - ITA 360/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 3 27. For the purposes of sections

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

section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal obligation ;)\n(iii) the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2)\nand (3) of section 17;\n42[(iiia) any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-\nclause (iii), specifically granted

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

Housing Board Colony,\nAmbala City-134003, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: BZWPS3748D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :\nNone\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nITO,\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 615 /Chd/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nWard-5(5), Chandigarh\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ARFPS1284A\nअपीलार्थी

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

section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal obligation ;)\n(iii) the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2)\nand (3) of section 17;\n42[(iiia) any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-\nclause (iii), specifically granted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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