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 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

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 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

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

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

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

THE AZAD NAKODAR BUS SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAKODAR vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAC CIRCL-4E, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Disallowance under section 40A(3) could not be made as identity of persons from whom purchases had been made was established, source of cash payment was clearly identifiable and the said details were submitted before AO. K.K Constructions Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT, Jaipur) ITA990/JP/2017 In case of Gurdas Garg, Bhathinda Vs ACIT. In ITAT, Amritsar matter in favour of assessed

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

3. That the Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in not keeping the appellate proceedings in abeyance despite the fact that Civil Writ Petition no. 2601 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as filed by the appellant was pending on that date which now stand decided in favour of assessee. 4. That the learned

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

3. That the Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in not keeping the appellate proceedings in abeyance despite the fact that Civil Writ Petition no. 2601 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as filed by the appellant was pending on that date which now stand decided in favour of assessee. 4. That the learned

MESERS ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

3. That the Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in not keeping the appellate proceedings in abeyance despite the fact that Civil Writ Petition no. 2601 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as filed by the appellant was pending on that date which now stand decided in favour of assessee. 4. That the learned

MESERS ARYA MODEL SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

3. That the Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in not keeping the appellate proceedings in abeyance despite the fact that Civil Writ Petition no. 2601 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as filed by the appellant was pending on that date which now stand decided in favour of assessee. 4. That the learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. M/S SURJIT SINGH AND CO, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

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

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax to the extent of Rs. 1,02,52,935/- on account of claim of payment of site charges/labour charges and, therefore, not allowable as deduction. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal.” 4. Briefly the facts are that the assessee is a civil contractor engaged in constructing

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

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without