SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

36) amounting to Rs. 99,16,874/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 3.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises of M/s Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Group

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: 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

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

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

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being

GURDEEP SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

36 of the said\njudgment. The Id. AR emphasized that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in\nunequivocal terms, held that the interest awarded u/s 28 has the same colour\nand character as compensation and, therefore, is liable to be treated as part\nof the enhanced compensation for income-tax purposes, whereas interest\nu/s 34 stands on a distinct footing being