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

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

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

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 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. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

249 to 253 and the returned income of the assessee was accepted. [Judgments on the issue that carbon credits are capital receipts upto AY 2017-18 are attached in the Indexed Judgment Set] 16. It is also submitted herewith that consistency has to be maintained in the Income Tax Proceedings also as per the following judgments: a. CIT Vs/ DalmiaDadri

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE SUKHBIR AGRO ENERGY LIMITED, FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal ITA No

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

disallowed the assessee’s claim and rejected the rectification petition, filed U/s 154 of the Act. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by challenging the orders of the ld. assessing authority, passed u/s 143(3) and section 154 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) considered the assessee’s appeal and I.T.A. Nos. 405 & 406/Asr/2019

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE SUKHBIR AGRO ENERGY LIMITED , FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal ITA No

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

disallowed the assessee’s claim and rejected the rectification petition, filed U/s 154 of the Act. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by challenging the orders of the ld. assessing authority, passed u/s 143(3) and section 154 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) considered the assessee’s appeal and I.T.A. Nos. 405 & 406/Asr/2019

UNIVERSAL BIOMASS ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUHARSAHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

disallowance u/s 143(1), because it is not as per provisions of law. 7.2 Secondly, he also submitted that on the face of the assessment order (paragraph – 1) it is categorically stated that there are two issues for which the case is selected for complete scrutiny. Firstly on account of verification of investments I.T.A. No. 267/Asr/2024 6 Assessment Year

SNATAN DHARM SABHA,MUKERIAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

2). Thus, this clearly is a case of laches and is directly the result of inaction of the part of the appellant. The reason given for delay is not persuasive enough to permit its condonation. In light of the foregoing, it is held that the appellant has no "sufficient cause in terms of section 249

SANGAM TRADERS 60-GOLDEN AVENUE SAILI ROAD PATHANKOT,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PATHANKOT SAILI ROAD PATHANKOT, PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

2. The assessee has taken 8 (eight) grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 challenging the addition of Rs. 10.76 crores u/s 144 of the Act and sustained and in first appeal, the main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without admitting the same for adjudication on merits of the case

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

249. Accordingly, the additions were deleted as the same were made on wrong facts. Ground No.7 14. The ld. DR vehemently argued and placed thatin this ground no. 7 the addition Rs.11,37,300/- made on account of unexplained investment and disallowance of Rs.5,56,800/- out of depreciation allowance. The ld. DR fully relied on assessment order

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

249 to 251 /Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 to 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Rajni Marwaha, Tax, Jalandhar 670, Model Town, Jalandhar, Punjab 144001 [PAN: ADWPM 8208P] ] (Respondent) (Appellant) 2 I.T.A. Nos. 265/Asr/2024 and Ors. Assessment Years: 2011-12 and Ors. Appellant by : Sh. K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT-DR : Respondent by Sh. Ashray Sarna

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. RAJNI MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

249 to 251 /Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 to 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Rajni Marwaha, Tax, Jalandhar 670, Model Town, Jalandhar, Punjab 144001 [PAN: ADWPM 8208P] ] (Respondent) (Appellant) 2 I.T.A. Nos. 265/Asr/2024 and Ors. Assessment Years: 2011-12 and Ors. Appellant by : Sh. K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT-DR : Respondent by Sh. Ashray Sarna