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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,000/- in cash, Rs. 16,77,625/- by cheque dated 15.03.2007 and Rs. 1,74,55,250/- by cheque from M/s Stepping Stone Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur. The proceeds of the aforesaid cheques were realized by assessee in March, 2007 and August, 2008 respectively. The assessee offered the part sale consideration of Rs. 17,45,625/- for capital gains

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

68,000/- in cash, Rs. 16,77,625/- by cheque dated 15.03.2007 and Rs. 1,74,55,250/- by cheque from M/s Stepping Stone Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur. The proceeds of the aforesaid cheques were realized by assessee in March, 2007 and August, 2008 respectively. The assessee offered the part sale consideration of Rs. 17,45,625/- for capital gains

HOMELIFE BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SUNVIEW ENCLAVE, AYALI KALAN, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. SMT. SAMANDEEP KAUR DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali

47. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that the basis is the same as per the arguments, while arguing ground No.1 to 3 in department appeal and ground No.1 &2 in assessee’s appeal, the same arguments be considered and no enquiries have been made from the buyers of the SCOs. The statement of Sh. Raj Kumar Sachdeva

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. HOMELIFE BUILDCON PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

47. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that the basis is the same as per the arguments, while arguing ground No.1 to 3 in department appeal and ground No.1 &2 in assessee’s appeal, the same arguments be considered and no enquiries have been made from the buyers of the SCOs. The statement of Sh. Raj Kumar Sachdeva

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,78,900/- as originally declared and thereafter notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith detailed questionnaire were issued and after taking into consideration the submissions so filed by the assessee and after carrying out necessary examination/verification, the assessment proceedings were completed under section 147 r.w.s 144B vide order dt. 30/03/2022 without drawing any adverse inference

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, NAHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

2,61,69,869/- assessed under Section 68 of the Act is duly covered under the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and the mistake being apparent from the record was thereafter rectified vide order dt. 15/03/2021 passed under section 154 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act wherein total tax payable was determined at a figure

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

Sections 2(47)(ii), (v) and (vi) of the Income Tax Act. He further held that, in the case of an assessee owning a 1000 square yards plot, the full value of consideration would be Rs.3.675 crores less cost of acquisition of Rs.12,81,724/-. The long term capital gain was, therefore, stated to be Rs.3,54,68

JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

68,78,906/-, Table 2. Rs.5,81,99,126/-, Table 4. Rs. 5,90,85,926/- and Table 5. Rs. 6,13,95,026/-. 26.1 On perusal of the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) in paragraph 5.2.3 (vi & vii) of the appellate order. The learned CIT(A) had examined the opening and closing balances appearing in Tables

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. M/S JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

68,78,906/-, Table 2. Rs.5,81,99,126/-, Table 4. Rs. 5,90,85,926/- and Table 5. Rs. 6,13,95,026/-. 26.1 On perusal of the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) in paragraph 5.2.3 (vi & vii) of the appellate order. The learned CIT(A) had examined the opening and closing balances appearing in Tables