SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

price with low level of construction which cannot be compared with residential house on independent plot in posh area. 15. The Ld. AR further submitted that PCIT has placed reliance on gift deed dated 8/10/2009 executed in favour of the assessee by his father. Stamp duty is charged on minimum collector for stamp duty purposes and it cannot reflect

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

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

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

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

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

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

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

1) of the Act.\n8.1 We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that the additional grounds\nraised are purely legal in nature and go to the root of the matter, involving the\nvery jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to assume assessment proceedings. The\nHon'ble Supreme Court in NTPC Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383) has held

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

1) of the Act.\n8.1 We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that the additional grounds\nraised are purely legal in nature and go to the root of the matter, involving the\nvery jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to assume assessment proceedings. The\nHon'ble Supreme Court in NTPC Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383) has held

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

1) of the Act.\n\n8.1 We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that the additional grounds\nraised are purely legal in nature and go to the root of the matter, involving the\nvery jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to assume assessment proceedings. The\nHon'ble Supreme Court in NTPC

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

37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from 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

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

37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from 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

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

37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from 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

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

37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from 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

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

37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from 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