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

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

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

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

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

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

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

transfer\nof agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head\n\"Capital gains\". The argument raised is not well founded.\n11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause\n46. 1. The said clause talks about undue hardship being caused as arrears of interest\nbeing taxable

SARVAN SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 4, AMBALA

transfer\nof agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head\n\"Capital gains\". The argument raised is not well founded.\n11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause\n46. 1. The said clause talks about undue hardship being caused as arrears of interest\nbeing taxable

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

transfer\nof agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head\n\"Capital gains\". The argument raised is not well founded.\n11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause\n46. 1. The said clause talks about undue hardship being caused as arrears of interest\nbeing taxable

BALJIT SINGH,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

transfer\nof agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head\n"Capital gains". The argument raised is not well founded.\n11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause\n46. 1. The said clause talks about undue hardship being caused as arrears of interest\nbeing taxable

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

transfer\nof agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head\n\"Capital gains\". The argument raised is not well founded.\n11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause\n46. 1. The said clause talks about undue hardship being caused as arrears of interest\nbeing taxable

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

transfer\nof agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head\n\"Capital gains\". The argument raised is not well founded.\n11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause\n46. 1. The said clause talks about undue hardship being caused as arrears of interest\nbeing taxable

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

transfer\nof agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head\n\"Capital gains\". The argument raised is not well founded.\n11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause\n46. 1. The said clause talks about undue hardship being caused as arrears of interest\nbeing taxable

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

transfer\nof agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head\n\"Capital gains\". The argument raised is not well founded.\n11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause\n46. 1. The said clause talks about undue hardship being caused as arrears of interest\nbeing taxable