M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

13 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) did not appreciate that the only object of the Institution is imparting of education and as such the income of the Society/Institution is exempt from Income-Tax and was not subject to Income-Tax. As such exemption under section 10(23cl of the Act, should have been

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

13 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) did not appreciate that the only object of the Institution is imparting of education and as such the income of the Society/Institution is exempt from Income-Tax and was not subject to Income-Tax. As such exemption under section 10(23cl of the Act, should have been

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

SHER-E- KASHMIR COLLAGE OF EDUCATION ( UNIT OF ) PIR PANCHAL EDUCATION TRUST,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , JAMMU

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

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

10(23C) (iiiad). During assessment the ld. AO on perusal of the balance sheet revealed that the trust has made advanced of Rs.26 lacs each to Sh. Syeed Ahmed Bhukhari and Sh. Charanjit Singh, totalling of Rs. 52 lacs. The advance to the trustee is violation of section 13(1) (c)(ii) and section 13(d) (i) r.w.s. 13

SHER-E- KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATION,(UNIT OF) PIR PANCHAL EDUCATION TRUST,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WRD-1(3), JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee

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

10(23C) (iiiad) and the said exemption was disallowed by the ld. AO for reason that for violation of section 13

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3, SRINAGAR vs. MEASAGE SAIFCO CEEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Department and CO of the Assesse is 23

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

10 Jan.2013 408424273/- 4424596/- 4424596/- 11 Feb.2013 408137690/- 4421492/- 4421492/ 12 March, 363096397/- 3933544/- 3933544/- 2013 Total 52788126/- TABLE-“B” Sr. No. Description Amount (in Rs.) 1. Total interest components added 5,27,88,126/- back 2. Interest Components already 3,45,40,887/- added back by the assessee - company in its computation of Income 3. Balance Interest

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , PHAGWARA vs. SH. SUCHA SINGH, PHILLAUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed by the competent authority. 4. At Para-4, page-56 it is written that "And whereas in pursuance of section 3D(1) of the said act, the competent authority had submitted its report to the Central Govt." 5. And in the last Para at page 56 of gazette, it is mentioned that as per section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S KAISER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 381/Asr./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Kaiser Industries Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-1, Jammu Industrial Growth Centre, Sidco, Samba (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabck0456G Assessee By : Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Yashender Garg, Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu Dated 31.03.2016. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ib(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Samba Unit As The Same Was Claimed To Inflate The Profit Of Eligible Unit For The Motive Of Availing Deduction U/S 80Ib.

13). For the sake of convenience section 80-1A(10) is reproduced: Where it appears to the Assessing Officer that, owing to the close connection between the assessee carrying on the eligible business to which this section applies and any other person, or for any other reason, the course of business between them is so arranged that the business