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 by this Court

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 by this Court

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 by this Court

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 by this Court

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 by this Court

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 by this Court

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 by this Court

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 by this Court

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

viii), a deduction of\na sum equal to 50 per cent. of such income would be allowable thereunder\nand no deduction would be allowed under any other clause of section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

section\n28 or section 41 or section 59;\n53[(va) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiia) of section 28 ;]\n54[(vb) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiib) of section 28 ;]\n55[(vc) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiic) of section 28 ;]\n56[(vd)] the value of any benefit or perquisite taxable

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question\nwhich was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on\ninheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even\nthe income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any\nbusiness venture of the three assesseesbut

AMRINDER SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, W-5, AMBALA

Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby\ndismissed

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question\nwhich was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on\ninheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even\nthe income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any\nbusiness venture of the three assesseesbut

JARNAIL SINGH,VILLAGE BHAGWANPUR, KALKA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question\nwhich was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on\ninheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even\nthe income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any\nbusiness venture of the three assesseesbut

SH. HAKAM SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, PATIALA

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question\nwhich was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on\ninheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even\nthe income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any\nbusiness venture of the three assesseesbut

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBALA vs. NACHHATAR SINGH, AMBALA CANTT

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question\nwhich was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on\ninheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even\nthe income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any\nbusiness venture of the three assesseesbut

BALJEET KAUR,NADI MOHALLA AMBALA CITY vs. ITO WARD 1, AMBALA, AMBALA

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question\nwhich was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on\ninheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even\nthe income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any\nbusiness venture of the three assesseesbut

SAT PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), , CHANDIGARH

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question\nwhich was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on\ninheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even\nthe income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any\nbusiness venture of the three assesseesbut

SH. AMRIK SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-2, PANCHKULA

6. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the property in question\nwhich was acquired by the Government, came to the respondents on\ninheritance from their father i.e. by the operation of law. Furthermore, even\nthe income which is earned in the form of interest is not because of any\nbusiness venture of the three assesseesbut