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

2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has not appreciated the facts of this case and has grossly erred in assessing the income at Rs. 21,72,081/-. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), did not appreciate that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the exemption claimed under section 10(23c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 3. That

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

2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has not appreciated the facts of this case and has grossly erred in assessing the income at Rs. 21,72,081/-. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), did not appreciate that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the exemption claimed under section 10(23c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 3. That

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

disallowed the expenses amount to Rs.6,57,010/- in different heads and 1/5 of this expenses amount to Rs. 1,31,400/- was added back with the total income. Aggrieved assessee filed as appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld I.T.A. No. 190/Asr/2023 5 Assessment Year: 2009-10 the order of the ld. AO. Being dissatisfied

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

disallowed and added back with the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued and mentioned that the payment of trustee is not related to this year of appeal. The issue is related

J.M.C PLYWOOD,GORAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, PHAGWARA

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

b. CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) c. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) d. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) e. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam

M/S DIAMOND RED TANNERIES,KAPURTHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

b. CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) c. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) d. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) e. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam

KHALSA BAKERY ,KAPUTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

b. CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) c. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) d. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) e. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam