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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

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

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan

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

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 :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

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

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) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

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

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

RANJEET SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD 2, AMBALA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

RAGHBIR SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-1(3), CHANDIGARH

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

SARVAN SINGH,AMBALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 4, AMBALA

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) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

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

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) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56