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

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: 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

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

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

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

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

56 of the Act made by Finance (No. 2) Act 2009 was duly considered by Hon'ble High Courts: i) 388 ITR 343 (Guj) Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. Income-tax Officer-TDS-1-Surat. ii) 417 ITR 169 (Bom) Rupesh Rashmikant Shah vs. UOI iii) 151 taxmann.com 62 (Bom) Balkrishna vs. State of Maharashtra iv) 457 ITR 777 (Orissa

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

56 of the Act made by Finance (No. 2) Act 2009 was duly considered by Hon'ble High Courts: i) 388 ITR 343 (Guj) Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. Income-tax Officer-TDS-1-Surat. ii) 417 ITR 169 (Bom) Rupesh Rashmikant Shah vs. UOI iii) 151 taxmann.com 62 (Bom) Balkrishna vs. State of Maharashtra iv) 457 ITR 777 (Orissa

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

56 of the Act made by Finance (No. 2) Act 2009 was duly considered by Hon'ble High Courts: i) 388 ITR 343 (Guj) Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. Income-tax Officer-TDS-1-Surat. ii) 417 ITR 169 (Bom) Rupesh Rashmikant Shah vs. UOI iii) 151 taxmann.com 62 (Bom) Balkrishna vs. State of Maharashtra iv) 457 ITR 777 (Orissa

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

56 of the Act made by Finance (No. 2) Act 2009 was duly considered by Hon'ble High Courts: i) 388 ITR 343 (Guj) Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. Income-tax Officer-TDS-1-Surat. ii) 417 ITR 169 (Bom) Rupesh Rashmikant Shah vs. UOI iii) 151 taxmann.com 62 (Bom) Balkrishna vs. State of Maharashtra iv) 457 ITR 777 (Orissa

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

56 of the Act made by Finance (No. 2) Act 2009 was duly considered by Hon'ble High Courts: i) 388 ITR 343 (Guj) Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. Income-tax Officer-TDS-1-Surat. ii) 417 ITR 169 (Bom) Rupesh Rashmikant Shah vs. UOI iii) 151 taxmann.com 62 (Bom) Balkrishna vs. State of Maharashtra iv) 457 ITR 777 (Orissa

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

56 of the Act made by Finance (No. 2) Act 2009 was duly considered by Hon'ble High Courts: i) 388 ITR 343 (Guj) Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. Income-tax Officer-TDS-1-Surat. ii) 417 ITR 169 (Bom) Rupesh Rashmikant Shah vs. UOI iii) 151 taxmann.com 62 (Bom) Balkrishna vs. State of Maharashtra iv) 457 ITR 777 (Orissa

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

56 of the Act made by Finance (No. 2) Act 2009 was duly considered by Hon'ble High Courts: i) 388 ITR 343 (Guj) Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. Income-tax Officer-TDS-1-Surat. ii) 417 ITR 169 (Bom) Rupesh Rashmikant Shah vs. UOI iii) 151 taxmann.com 62 (Bom) Balkrishna vs. State of Maharashtra iv) 457 ITR 777 (Orissa

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

x. HC) held that “30. We, accordingly, answer the substantial question of law which has arisen in the instant appeal in affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. We, thus, hold that the ITAT has erred in relying upon the decision of Ghanshyam (supra), ignoring the changes brought about by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, which came into effect

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

x. HC) held that “30. We, accordingly, answer the substantial question of law which has arisen in the instant appeal in affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. We, thus, hold that the ITAT has erred in relying upon the decision of Ghanshyam (supra), ignoring the changes brought about by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, which came into effect

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

x. HC) held that “30. We, accordingly, answer the substantial question of law which has arisen in the instant appeal in affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. We, thus, hold that the ITAT has erred in relying upon the decision of Ghanshyam (supra), ignoring the changes brought about by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, which came into effect