M/S. GULZAR SINGH GURBACHAN SINGH,DISTT.BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 146&147/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2008-09

section 28.’ The assessee’s case before the Tribunal as well as before the first appellate authority is that the disallowance is not tenable as the assessment/s has been wrongly framed u/s. 144

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 144 by him, is invalid; and (c) that the disallowance u/s. 80-IB as well as of the indirect

SHRI GULZAR SINGH , GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

disallowance made on a/c of cash discount at Rs.22905/-. The penalty has been upheld without appreciating that the appellant had maintained complete books of account and hence the confirmation of penalty is without any jurisdiction and liable to be deleted. (d) That the Ld CIT (Appeals), failed to appreciate that the assessment was framed under section 144

SHRI GULZAR SINGH. GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

disallowance made on a/c of cash discount at Rs.22905/-. The penalty has been upheld without appreciating that the appellant had maintained complete books of account and hence the confirmation of penalty is without any jurisdiction and liable to be deleted. (d) That the Ld CIT (Appeals), failed to appreciate that the assessment was framed under section 144

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

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

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

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

M/S NICE TELECOM,MANSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 11.12.2012 for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. 2. It may be relevant to recount the facts of the case in brief. The assessee-firm, a franchisee dealer for Tata Tele-Services Ltd. (TTSL) (‘Principal’) for sale of telephony services (mobile connections), including installation and repair

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

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

disallowed under section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel argued & placed the fact that assessee having factory in remote area in village Bholuwal, where no banking facility is available. In additional evidence the assessee has filed Certificate of Panchayat with English version & Affidavit of director of company which are enclosed as Page 31-33 of Paper book. By the additional evidence

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

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

disallowed under section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel argued & placed the fact that assessee having factory in remote area in village Bholuwal, where no banking facility is available. In additional evidence the assessee has filed Certificate of Panchayat with English version & Affidavit of director of company which are enclosed as Page 31-33 of Paper book. By the additional evidence

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

disallowed. The Tribunal on appeal, however, allowed the above claim which was further upheld by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under: \“10. The aforesaid facts would demonstrate that the ingredients of section 37 of the Act stand satisfied. Therefore, normally the expenditure is to be allowed as businessexpenditure in the year in question in which the same