RAJBIR SINGH,VILL. GARHI BANJARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

JAGPAL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

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

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name

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

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name

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

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

AVTAR SINGH,VILLAGE MANAKPUR THAKUR DASS vs. ITO WARD-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name

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

2 (14)(iii) the Agriculture land, income under section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

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

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

SUSHMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD - 4, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

SH. KULBIR SINGH S/O SH. JAGIR SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

199, which requires that for claiming TDS credit, the corresponding\nincome must be offered to tax.\n9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended\nthat the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of\ncompensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital\ngains computation in either the original

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