M/S STEP BY STEP JUNIOR SCHOOL SOCIETY,AMRITSAR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this clause in the same or any other previous year;] 19. From the reading of Section 10(23C) (vi), it is amply clear that the university and educational institution that are solely for educational purposes and not for profit must

MESERS IMPROVEMENT TRUST ,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

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

depreciation the income amount of Rs.6,09,41,640/- was claimed as exempt u/s I.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2018 5 Assessment Year: 2014-15 11 of the Act. So, the total income of the assessee was Nil. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3). In the assessment the assessee was rejected for claimed of exemption u/s 11 and 12 by invoking section

MESERS SHRI SWAMI SHANKARNATH PARVAT CHARITABLE AND WELFARE TRUST ,KAPURTHALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

6 7. The assessee had submitted that the detailed reply of all the notices received by the assessee, the CIT exemption in paragraph 7.1 and 7.2 mentioned as under:- 7.1 In response to the additional queries the applicant trust submitted the reply vide letter dated 24.09.2018. In its reply applicant trust stated that only Toor Dal is produced as agriculture

SH. RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014 & 6 ors 5 ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The relief was granted related to addition of depreciation amount to Rs.44

RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, AMRITSAR.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014 & 6 ors 5 ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The relief was granted related to addition of depreciation amount to Rs.44

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014 & 6 ors 5 ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The relief was granted related to addition of depreciation amount to Rs.44

SH. RAM SHARAN DASS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014 & 6 ors 5 ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The relief was granted related to addition of depreciation amount to Rs.44

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- (EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014 & 6 ors 5 ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The relief was granted related to addition of depreciation amount to Rs.44

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014 & 6 ors 5 ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The relief was granted related to addition of depreciation amount to Rs.44

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- (EXEMPTIONS)), AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014 & 6 ors 5 ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The relief was granted related to addition of depreciation amount to Rs.44

MESERS BAJAJ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

6) 2015- 13,78,860 31,63,811 17,84,951 39,98,361 57,83,312 16 2016- 99,14,470 78,05,472 21,08,998 34,86,185 13,77,187 2017 VII. From the above details, it can be construed that the Applicant Society had not earned any surplus after Depreciation. Therefore, the whole income earned

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged