SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 6.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

M/S H.P.STATE FOREST COPRN. LTD.,SHIMLA vs. JCIT, S.R., SHIMLA

In the result, the present appeal of Appellant/Assessee is allowed and impugned order of Ld

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav& Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.280& 281/Chd/2000 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 1990-91& 1991-92 M/S H.P. State Forest Corp. Ltd. Vs The Jcit, Van Nigam Kasumpti Shimla Shimla "ायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaach4036L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By: Shri Y.K. Sud, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2024 Hybridhearing आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm: Both The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Above Appeals Are Common & Were Heard Together Therefore They Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity. We Shall Take Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No. 280/Chd/2000 As A Lead Case.

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the Assessee from time to time and ultimately the Assessment was completed u/s 144 of the IT Act, 1961 on 31/03/1994 at the Returned income of Rs.92,52,000/- for the reasons given in the Assessment Order. The assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by CIT(A), Shimla vide

M/S H.P.STATE FOREST COPRN. LTD.,SHIMLA vs. JCIT, S.R., SHIMLA

In the result, the present appeal of Appellant/Assessee is allowed and impugned order of Ld

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav& Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.280& 281/Chd/2000 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 1990-91& 1991-92 M/S H.P. State Forest Corp. Ltd. Vs The Jcit, Van Nigam Kasumpti Shimla Shimla "ायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaach4036L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By: Shri Y.K. Sud, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2024 Hybridhearing आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm: Both The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Above Appeals Are Common & Were Heard Together Therefore They Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity. We Shall Take Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No. 280/Chd/2000 As A Lead Case.

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the Assessee from time to time and ultimately the Assessment was completed u/s 144 of the IT Act, 1961 on 31/03/1994 at the Returned income of Rs.92,52,000/- for the reasons given in the Assessment Order. The assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by CIT(A), Shimla vide

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

13, Block-B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhari- 135003, Haryana\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\n\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\n\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment

SH. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

13, Block-B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhari- 135003, Haryana\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year