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

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

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: 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

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

SARASWATI AGRO CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT.LTD,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CPC/ DCIT CIRCLE -6(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Filing Of Return Of Income.” 3. The Ld. Ar Inviting Attention To The Impugned Order

68,698/-) for deposit of employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after the due date specified under the respective Acts of PF and ESI. The amount of contribution has been deposited well before the filing of return of income.” 3. The ld. AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that the point at issue is fully covered

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

SHAKTI APIFOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANGRUR vs. ADIT,CPC/ DCIT-CIRCLE-IV, LUDHIANA

In the result, the addition so made towards the provision for gratuity amounting to Rs

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshakti Apifoods Private Limited. बनाम The Assessing Officer, Malerkotla Road, Circle-Iv(1), Sangrur. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aamcs8546C

via Webex.” 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 wherein Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been introduced. It was submitted that from the reading of the said amendment it is evident that the law is and has always been very clear that employees’ contribution

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL APPARELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

1,34,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the above said cheques were not sent for encashment in the bank and the entries were reversed during next year by passing the reverse entry on 01.10.2011 and argued that hence no addition of Rs. 7,34,50,000/- should be made. The AR relied upon various case laws in support

M/S OSWAL APPARELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C.C.- 1, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

1,34,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the above said cheques were not sent for encashment in the bank and the entries were reversed during next year by passing the reverse entry on 01.10.2011 and argued that hence no addition of Rs. 7,34,50,000/- should be made. The AR relied upon various case laws in support

ACIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL TRENDS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

1,34,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the above said cheques were not sent for encashment in the bank and the entries were reversed during next year by passing the reverse entry on 01.10.2011 and argued that hence no addition of Rs. 7,34,50,000/- should be made. The AR relied upon various case laws in support

ACIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL TRENDS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

1,34,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the above said cheques were not sent for encashment in the bank and the entries were reversed during next year by passing the reverse entry on 01.10.2011 and argued that hence no addition of Rs. 7,34,50,000/- should be made. The AR relied upon various case laws in support

M/S OSWAL TREND (P) LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C. C.-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

1,34,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the above said cheques were not sent for encashment in the bank and the entries were reversed during next year by passing the reverse entry on 01.10.2011 and argued that hence no addition of Rs. 7,34,50,000/- should be made. The AR relied upon various case laws in support

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL APPARELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

1,34,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the above said cheques were not sent for encashment in the bank and the entries were reversed during next year by passing the reverse entry on 01.10.2011 and argued that hence no addition of Rs. 7,34,50,000/- should be made. The AR relied upon various case laws in support

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

1. Like the Mobile Phone the data is transmitted and received using RF waves further the signal is encrypted when it is transmitted via satellite. The mobile decodes signal and allow the persons to talk. Similarly, STBs receive encrypted signals and it is decoded by STBs to allow the users to watch the programs. In mobile phones, if there