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

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

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

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

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

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

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

65,500/- per acre i.e. at the rate of Rs.592,045 per sq. yards as on the\nday of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners\nare also held entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium at the\nrate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum and\ninterest

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

65,500/- per acre i.e. at the rate of Rs.592,045 per sq. yards as on the\nday of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners\nare also held entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium at the\nrate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum and\ninterest

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

65,500/- per acre i.e. at the rate of Rs.592,045 per sq. yards as on the\nday of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners\nare also held entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium at the\nrate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum and\ninterest

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

65,500/- per acre i.e. at the rate of Rs.592,045 per sq. yards as on the\nday of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners\nare also held entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium at the\nrate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum and\ninterest

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

65,500/- per acre i.e. at the rate of Rs.592,045 per sq. yards as on the\nday of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners\nare also held entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium at the\nrate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum and\ninterest

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

65,500/- per acre i.e. at the rate of Rs.592,045 per sq. yards as on the\nday of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners\nare also held entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium at the\nrate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum and\ninterest

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

65,500/- per acre i.e. at the rate of Rs.592,045 per sq. yards as on the\nday of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners\nare also held entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium at the\nrate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum and\ninterest

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

65,500/- per acre i.e. at the rate of Rs.592,045 per sq. yards as on the\nday of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners\nare also held entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium at the\nrate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum and\ninterest

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

65,500/- per acre i.e. at the rate of Rs.592,045 per sq. yards as on the\nday of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners\nare also held entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium at the\nrate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum and\ninterest