ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

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

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

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

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

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

BHUPINDER SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-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. HAKAM SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, PATIALA

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

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

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

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

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

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