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

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

149 ITR 609, the Madras Court held that it is well established that a decision on the question whether certain trust is a charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001

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

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

149 ITR 609, the Madras Court held that it is well established that a decision on the question whether certain trust is a charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001

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

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

149 ITR 609, the Madras Court held that it is well established that a decision on the question whether certain trust is a charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001

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

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

149 ITR 609, the Madras Court held that it is well established that a decision on the question whether certain trust is a charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001

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

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

149 ITR 609, the Madras Court held that it is well established that a decision on the question whether certain trust is a charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001

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

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

149 ITR 609, the Madras Court held that it is well established that a decision on the question whether certain trust is a charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001

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

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

149 ITR 609, the Madras Court held that it is well established that a decision on the question whether certain trust is a charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001

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

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

149 ITR 609, the Madras Court held that it is well established that a decision on the question whether certain trust is a charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001

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

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

149 ITR 609, the Madras Court held that it is well established that a decision on the question whether certain trust is a charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001

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

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

149 ITR 609, the Madras Court held that it is well established that a decision on the question whether certain trust is a charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) “11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of asearch under Section 132 or requisition under Section132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassessthe ‘total income’ in respect of each assessment yearfalling within six assessment years. However, it isrequired to be noted that as per the second proviso toSection 153A, the assessment