M/S.PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

200/- on account of car repaired and maintenance expenses Rs.475269/-, depreciation amount of Rs.6744/- and Rs.9189/- and ad hoc disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

200/- on account of car repaired and maintenance expenses Rs.475269/-, depreciation amount of Rs.6744/- and Rs.9189/- and ad hoc disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITURE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

200/- on account of car repaired and maintenance expenses Rs.475269/-, depreciation amount of Rs.6744/- and Rs.9189/- and ad hoc disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific

S.S. JAIN SABHA GOLF LINK, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

200 sq yard land donation from a member to commence its activities. Recognizing the need for a larger space to effectively achieve its goals, it sold the old plot and purchased a larger plot of size 322 sq. yard. The society then started construction thereupon. Construction of the worship place is in itself a part of religious activities as there

B.R CHARITABLE TRUST,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)- WARD, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Charitable Trust, Sector -6, Vs. ITO, (Exemption), Gangyal Jammu-180003 Ward-Jammu. [PAN: AABTB4276G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None. (Written submission) Respondent by Sh. Surendra Nath, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 10.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Jammu

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI CHUNI LAL, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

200/‐ thus made an addition of Rs.4,60,57,700/‐ in the hand of assessee on account of declaration made during survey. Aggrieved by the order, assessee preferred appeal before Worthy CIT(A), wherein the Worthy CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and made addition of only Rs.8,25,000/‐ out of the total addition

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI HARMESH KUMAR, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

200/‐ thus made an addition of Rs.4,60,57,700/‐ in the hand of assessee on account of declaration made during survey. Aggrieved by the order, assessee preferred appeal before Worthy CIT(A), wherein the Worthy CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and made addition of only Rs.8,25,000/‐ out of the total addition

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS,), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

trust and claim that the assessee had multiple activities so it not able to exempt u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) for educational purpose. Accordingly, the exemption was denied, and the net profit was taken as a taxable income of the assessee. The addition was made Rs. 60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia). But the assessee has claimed that

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

trust and claim that the assessee had multiple activities so it not able to exempt u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) for educational purpose. Accordingly, the exemption was denied, and the net profit was taken as a taxable income of the assessee. The addition was made Rs. 60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia). But the assessee has claimed that

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

trust and claim that the assessee had multiple activities so it not able to exempt u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) for educational purpose. Accordingly, the exemption was denied, and the net profit was taken as a taxable income of the assessee. The addition was made Rs. 60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia). But the assessee has claimed that

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

trust and claim that the assessee had multiple activities so it not able to exempt u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) for educational purpose. Accordingly, the exemption was denied, and the net profit was taken as a taxable income of the assessee. The addition was made Rs. 60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia). But the assessee has claimed that