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

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

B) for the assessment year 1981-82 reversed the view of the assessing officer and directed to grant exemption to the assessee trust. [Refer Page 333-338 of the paper book] 6. In the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 1992-93, the aforesaid two issues viz., (i) the assessee-trust was running a newspaper to promote Punjab, Punjabi

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

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

B) for the assessment year 1981-82 reversed the view of the assessing officer and directed to grant exemption to the assessee trust. [Refer Page 333-338 of the paper book] 6. In the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 1992-93, the aforesaid two issues viz., (i) the assessee-trust was running a newspaper to promote Punjab, Punjabi

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

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

B) for the assessment year 1981-82 reversed the view of the assessing officer and directed to grant exemption to the assessee trust. [Refer Page 333-338 of the paper book] 6. In the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 1992-93, the aforesaid two issues viz., (i) the assessee-trust was running a newspaper to promote Punjab, Punjabi

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

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

B) for the assessment year 1981-82 reversed the view of the assessing officer and directed to grant exemption to the assessee trust. [Refer Page 333-338 of the paper book] 6. In the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 1992-93, the aforesaid two issues viz., (i) the assessee-trust was running a newspaper to promote Punjab, Punjabi

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

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

B) for the assessment year 1981-82 reversed the view of the assessing officer and directed to grant exemption to the assessee trust. [Refer Page 333-338 of the paper book] 6. In the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 1992-93, the aforesaid two issues viz., (i) the assessee-trust was running a newspaper to promote Punjab, Punjabi

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

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

B) for the assessment year 1981-82 reversed the view of the assessing officer and directed to grant exemption to the assessee trust. [Refer Page 333-338 of the paper book] 6. In the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 1992-93, the aforesaid two issues viz., (i) the assessee-trust was running a newspaper to promote Punjab, Punjabi

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

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

B) for the assessment year 1981-82 reversed the view of the assessing officer and directed to grant exemption to the assessee trust. [Refer Page 333-338 of the paper book] 6. In the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 1992-93, the aforesaid two issues viz., (i) the assessee-trust was running a newspaper to promote Punjab, Punjabi

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

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

B) for the assessment year 1981-82 reversed the view of the assessing officer and directed to grant exemption to the assessee trust. [Refer Page 333-338 of the paper book] 6. In the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 1992-93, the aforesaid two issues viz., (i) the assessee-trust was running a newspaper to promote Punjab, Punjabi

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

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

B) for the assessment year 1981-82 reversed the view of the assessing officer and directed to grant exemption to the assessee trust. [Refer Page 333-338 of the paper book] 6. In the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 1992-93, the aforesaid two issues viz., (i) the assessee-trust was running a newspaper to promote Punjab, Punjabi

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

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

B) for the assessment year 1981-82 reversed the view of the assessing officer and directed to grant exemption to the assessee trust. [Refer Page 333-338 of the paper book] 6. In the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 1992-93, the aforesaid two issues viz., (i) the assessee-trust was running a newspaper to promote Punjab, Punjabi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVTE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee

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

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA 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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA 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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR 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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee