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

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 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

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

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 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. MS CHANDAR BHAGA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

disallowing the 2 I.T.A. No.408/Asr/2024 ITO v. Chandar Bhaga Educational Trust claim for exemption u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B within the stipulated time frame of at least one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return u/s 139(1). 2. Grounds of appeal taken

SHREE AMAR KSHATRIYA SABHA CHARITABLE TRUST ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

2. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by CPC while passing the Intimation u/s 143(1). As such the same is liable to be cancelled. Similarly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) thereby confirming the same is also bad in the eyes of law and the same is also liable to be cancelled

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

disallowing of interest Rs. 60,000/- without appreciating that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply on the income of school, as the income of school does not assessee under sections 28 to 44 of the Act. That the appellant craves leave to add, to, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608

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

disallowing of interest Rs. 60,000/- without appreciating that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply on the income of school, as the income of school does not assessee under sections 28 to 44 of the Act. That the appellant craves leave to add, to, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608

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

disallowing of interest Rs. 60,000/- without appreciating that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply on the income of school, as the income of school does not assessee under sections 28 to 44 of the Act. That the appellant craves leave to add, to, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608

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

disallowing of interest Rs. 60,000/- without appreciating that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply on the income of school, as the income of school does not assessee under sections 28 to 44 of the Act. That the appellant craves leave to add, to, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608

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

2. Brief facts of the casesare that for ITA 303 to 306/Asr/2017 are reopened u/s 148 of the Act& assessments were completed u/s 143(3)/147. The issue is common for all cases that is rejection of exemption u/s 11 in connection with withdrawal of registration u/s 12A of the Act. The assessee is established under the Society Registration

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

In the result, the ITA No

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

2. Brief facts of the casesare that for ITA 303 to 306/Asr/2017 are reopened u/s 148 of the Act& assessments were completed u/s 143(3)/147. The issue is common for all cases that is rejection of exemption u/s 11 in connection with withdrawal of registration u/s 12A of the Act. The assessee is established under the Society Registration

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

2. Brief facts of the casesare that for ITA 303 to 306/Asr/2017 are reopened u/s 148 of the Act& assessments were completed u/s 143(3)/147. The issue is common for all cases that is rejection of exemption u/s 11 in connection with withdrawal of registration u/s 12A of the Act. The assessee is established under the Society Registration