M/S ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 821/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, Circle-1 Charitable Trust, बनाम (Exemptions), # 2129, Phase-10, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L

1,73,73,648/- by applying the provisions of section 115BBC and section 68 of the Act treating

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

section 153C, for the sake of ready reference, are reproduced as under: 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

section 2(15) there is a paradigm shift from the earlier position. Though, some of the decisions of the Delhi High Court as referred to above and that of the Pb. & Hry. High Court in the case of The Tribune Trust (supra) have been delivered subsequent to the introduction of the second proviso to section

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: 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 to constitute 'income from 'other sources', the source, namely, the "other sources", has to be identified. Income from unexplained

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

73 of Paperbook, going through the DFSC certificates, which was certified by the DFSC (having TIN no. 06491005236) for payment made to Appellant is summarized as follows- Quarter Sales Amount VAT @ 5% 01.07.2016 to 30.09.2016-11 Quarter 40,45,511.23 2,02,275.56 01.07.2016 to 30.09.2016 - II Quarter 6,91,269.54 34,563.48 01.10.2016 to 31.12.2016-III Quarter 1

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

1)(iii) of the Act provides that “the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession” has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the income under Section 280 of the Act. It was further noted by the Apex Court that the expression “for the purpose of business

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1,052,882/- 2009-10 Rs. 64,73,424/- Rs. 11,00,496/- 2010-11 Rs. 62,72,020/- Rs. 10,66,256/- 2011-12 Rs. 54,66,404/- Rs. 8,68,083/- 2012-13 Rs. 53,65,700/- Rs. 8,29,003/- 7.4 It was submitted that in view of the same, where the income of the assessee

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1,052,882/- 2009-10 Rs. 64,73,424/- Rs. 11,00,496/- 2010-11 Rs. 62,72,020/- Rs. 10,66,256/- 2011-12 Rs. 54,66,404/- Rs. 8,68,083/- 2012-13 Rs. 53,65,700/- Rs. 8,29,003/- 7.4 It was submitted that in view of the same, where the income of the assessee

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1,052,882/- 2009-10 Rs. 64,73,424/- Rs. 11,00,496/- 2010-11 Rs. 62,72,020/- Rs. 10,66,256/- 2011-12 Rs. 54,66,404/- Rs. 8,68,083/- 2012-13 Rs. 53,65,700/- Rs. 8,29,003/- 7.4 It was submitted that in view of the same, where the income of the assessee

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1,052,882/- 2009-10 Rs. 64,73,424/- Rs. 11,00,496/- 2010-11 Rs. 62,72,020/- Rs. 10,66,256/- 2011-12 Rs. 54,66,404/- Rs. 8,68,083/- 2012-13 Rs. 53,65,700/- Rs. 8,29,003/- 7.4 It was submitted that in view of the same, where the income of the assessee