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

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: 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

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

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

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

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

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

H) dt. 11/09/1979\n•\nRama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989\nK.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nBikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996\n•\nSunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001\n•\nShivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others

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

H) dt. 11/09/1979\n•\nRama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nK.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nBikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996\n•\nSunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001\n•\nShivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others

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

H) dt. 11/09/1979\n•\nRama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nK.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nBikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996\n•\nSunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001\n•\nShivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others

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

H) dt. 11/09/1979\n•\nRama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nK.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nBikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996\n•\nSunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001\n•\nShivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others

LABH SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO 2,, PANCHKULA

H) dt. 11/09/1979\n•\nRama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nK.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nBikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996\n•\nSunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001\n•\nShivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others

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

H) dt. 11/09/1979\n•\nRama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nK.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nBikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996\n•\nSunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001\n•\nShivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others

ANJU,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) , MOHALI

H) dt. 11/09/1979\n•\nRama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nK.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nBikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996\n•\nSunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001\n•\nShivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others

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

H) dt. 11/09/1979\n•\nRama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nK.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nBikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996\n•\nSunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001\n•\nShivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others

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

H) dt. 11/09/1979\nRama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989\nK.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989\nBikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996\nSunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001\nShivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others, Vs The State of Maharashtra\nand

BHUPINDER SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

H) dt. 11/09/1979\n•\nRama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nK.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989\n•\nBikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996\n•\nSunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001\n•\nShivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others