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

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 :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

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

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, INCOME TAX OFFICE BARNALA vs. LAKHVIR SINGH, GRAIN MARKET, BARNALA

section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal obligation ;)\n(iii) the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2)\nand (3) of section 17;\n42[(iiia) any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-\nclause (iii), specifically granted

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

SURESH KUMAR,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, W-4, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

160 taxmann.com 652 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) In this case, observation of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Para 22 of the order again confirms the ration laid down in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax- 6 v. Meenakshi overseas Pvt Ltd. [ITA 651/2015]. In the other word Hon'ble High Court recognized that, the use of phrase

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

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

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: 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

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

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

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

160\nTAxmann.com 357 (Delhi) and emphasis was laid on following\nextract:-\n\n\" Where Assessing Officer during assessment proceeding issued a\nquestionnaire to assessee regarding deduction on account of\nprovision for non-performing assets and loss on interest rate swap\nand same was replied by assessee, it was not a case where no\nenquiry whatsoever had been conducted by Assessing

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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

SH. GURINDER SINGH GREWAL L/H OF PARNEET KAUR GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), 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

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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation