SH.RANDHIR SINGH,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

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

68)] there is net tax payable of Rs.31,61,510/- including interest components and as on 06.12.2017 [note:- interest under Section 234B is of Rs.9,96,370/- and interest under Section 234C is of Rs.43,369/-]. The original assessment order dated 06.12.2017 is under challenge by the assessee before CIT(A) and its fate is not known

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 5,81,99,126 Table 3 4,15,99,065 Table 4 5,90,85,926 Table 5 6,13,95,026 Table 7 6,48,54,173 Table 8 1,87,18,474 Table 9 67,94,892 Page no 44 of A-3 12,80,679 Page

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 5,81,99,126 Table 3 4,15,99,065 Table 4 5,90,85,926 Table 5 6,13,95,026 Table 7 6,48,54,173 Table 8 1,87,18,474 Table 9 67,94,892 Page no 44 of A-3 12,80,679 Page

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

482 399(AP). 5.16 The Ld. Pr CIT was of the view that once the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(3) of the Act are invoked, surplus is brought to tax, payment made in excess of what is reasonable is disallowed and added to income and the total income so calculated is taxed at maximum marginal

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

482 399(AP). 5.16 The Ld. Pr CIT was of the view that once the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(3) of the Act are invoked, surplus is brought to tax, payment made in excess of what is reasonable is disallowed and added to income and the total income so calculated is taxed at maximum marginal

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

482 399(AP). 5.16 The Ld. Pr CIT was of the view that once the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(3) of the Act are invoked, surplus is brought to tax, payment made in excess of what is reasonable is disallowed and added to income and the total income so calculated is taxed at maximum marginal

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

68,24,235/- out of which the AO has already made addition of Rs. 2,65,06,482/- (though should have been worked out at Rs. 4,19,74,438/- as discussed vide para 5.3.7). Accordingly, income was further enhanced by Rs. 7,03,17,753/- for A.Y. 2012-13. 11.20 Regarding the additional ground of appeal and related contention

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

68,24,235/- out of which the AO has already made addition of Rs. 2,65,06,482/- (though should have been worked out at Rs. 4,19,74,438/- as discussed vide para 5.3.7). Accordingly, income was further enhanced by Rs. 7,03,17,753/- for A.Y. 2012-13. 11.20 Regarding the additional ground of appeal and related contention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

482 & 483/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19\nVaishali Aggarwal\nबनाम\nC/o Parikshit Aggarwal,\nChartered Accountant, H No.\n3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh-\n160022.\nDeputy Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Centre Circle-1,\nChandigarh.\nस्था.लेखासं./PAN NO: AAQPA4025M\nअपीलाथी/Appellant\nप्रत्यार्थी/Respondent\n&\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 846/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\n&\nआयकर अपील सं

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

482 & 483/CHD /2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19\nVaishali Aggarwal\nबनाम\nC/o Parikshit Aggarwal,\nChartered Accountant, H No.\n3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh-\n160022.\nस्थायी लेखासं./PAN NO: AAQPA4025M\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nDeputy Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Centre Circle-1,\nChandigarh.\nप्रत्यर्थी/Respondent\n&\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 846/CHD /2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\n&\nआयकर