DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under

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

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

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

45)/4/5 of the I T . Act yet that does not mean that income assessable under section 68 has to be assessed under section 56. In the case before us, source of unexplained cash credits is not known and hence they cannot be linked to any known source/head of income including income from other sources. In order

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

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

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

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

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

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