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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

1)(c)(ii) and section 13(d)(i) exemption available u/s. 11 is denied if any property of the Trust is utilized by the persons referred in section 13(3) and if investment of the trust funds is made in the modes/ other than the modes specified under section 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The argument of assessee

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

1)(c)(ii) and section 13(d)(i) exemption available u/s. 11 is denied if any property of the Trust is utilized by the persons referred in section 13(3) and if investment of the trust funds is made in the modes/ other than the modes specified under section 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The argument of assessee

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

1)(c)(ii) and section 13(d)(i) exemption available u/s. 11 is denied if any property of the Trust is utilized by the persons referred in section 13(3) and if investment of the trust funds is made in the modes/ other than the modes specified under section 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The argument of assessee

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

1)(c)(ii) and section 13(d)(i) exemption available u/s. 11 is denied if any property of the Trust is utilized by the persons referred in section 13(3) and if investment of the trust funds is made in the modes/ other than the modes specified under section 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The argument of assessee

KAY SWITCGEARS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

13 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 32. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

13 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 32. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore

M. K HOTEL & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

13 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 32. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore

NAVODIA TIMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

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

disallowance of such payments is too harsh a punishment for delayed payments. Therefore, we recommend that the deduction for delayed payment of statutory liability relating to labour should be allowed in the year of payment like delayed taxes and interest." Based on the report, the Union introduced amendments to the IT Act, including an amendment to section 43B; the memorandum

M/S. RAMCO ENGG WORKS ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

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

d), clause (e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of section 43B was explained by this