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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore-134102\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-2, Panchkula\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: EAAPS5523L\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :\nSmt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A (Virtual)\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 668/Chd/2022\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nShri Suresh Pal,\nVill

DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA vs. OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA vs. OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

173 to 174 and another letter, dated\n10.09.2021 placed at pages 176 to 177 and asked for copy of the search warrant\nand the Panchnama coupled with the satisfaction note in the case of assessee\ncompany.\n1.6\nThe Ld. Assessing Officer vide letter, dated 24.09.2021, copy placed at pages 171\nto 172, mentioned that the search was initiated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

173 to 174 and another letter, dated\n10.09.2021 placed at pages 176 to 177 and asked for copy of the search warrant\nand the Panchnama coupled with the satisfaction note in the case of assessee\ncompany.\n1.6\nThe Ld. Assessing Officer vide letter, dated 24.09.2021, copy placed at pages 171\nto 172, mentioned that the search was initiated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

173 to 174 and another letter, dated\n10.09.2021 placed at pages 176 to 177 and asked for copy of the search warrant\nand the Panchnama coupled with the satisfaction note in the case of assessee\ncompany.\n1.6\nThe Ld. Assessing Officer vide letter, dated 24.09.2021, copy placed at pages 171\nto 172, mentioned that the search was initiated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

173 to 174 and another letter, dated\n10.09.2021 placed at pages 176 to 177 and asked for copy of the search warrant\nand the Panchnama coupled with the satisfaction note in the case of assessee\ncompany.\n1.6\nThe Ld. Assessing Officer vide letter, dated 24.09.2021, copy placed at pages 171\nto 172, mentioned that the search was initiated