MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

ACIT,CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed that no fault with the suo-moto disallowance made

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed that no fault with the suo-moto disallowance made

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed that no fault with the suo-moto disallowance made

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed that no fault with the suo-moto disallowance made

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed that no fault with the suo-moto disallowance made

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMT. RITU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

79,089/- and claimed exemption under Section\n10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The AO, thereafter, made\nreference to a report of Director of Investigation, Calcutta.\nSuch reference is of general term and we deem it\nappropriate to take note of this observation of the AO which\nis verbatim on all three assessment orders. It readd as\nunder

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

79,089/- and claimed exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The AO, thereafter, made reference to a report of Director of Investigation, Calcutta. Such reference is of general term and we deem it appropriate to take note of this observation of the AO which is verbatim on all three assessment orders. It readd as under