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

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

31. It was also submitted that the amendment to Section 145A(b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while

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

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

31. It was also submitted that the amendment to Section 145A(b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

31. It was also submitted that the amendment to Section 145A(b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while

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

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

31. It was also submitted that the amendment to Section 145A(b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while

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

31. It was also submitted that the amendment to Section 145A(b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

31. It was also submitted that the amendment to Section 145A(b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while

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

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

31. It was also submitted that the amendment to Section 145A(b) was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010 (notification dated 09/07/2009), subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Therefore, the legislature did not have the benefit of considering the said decision while

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

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

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

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

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. PARGAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD -1, KAITHAL

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

SAMAY SINGH,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO-WARD (5), YAMUNANAGAR

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. PARDEEP KUMAR,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD-3, 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. GURINDER SINGH GREWAL L/H OF PARNEET KAUR GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), 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

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

2) (viii), a deduction of\na sum equal to 50 per cent. of such income would be allowable thereunder\nand no deduction would be allowed under any other clause of 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

PREETO THROUGH L/H GURMUKH SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD NO. 3, 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