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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

68, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEKPS5692A Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 28.10.2016 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAs राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.02.2019 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019 आदेश/Order

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

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent.; and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

5. The point for determination in this appeal is, whether Rs.5,00,000/- which was surrendered by the assessee during the course of survey under Section 133A of the Act would form part of business income or was assessable under Section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal after considering the factual