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

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

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

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

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

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

disallowance U/s 40A(3) amount to Rs. 8,38,000/-.Being aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved revenue filed an appeal before us. Ground No.1 4. In the ground no. 1 of the revenue, the DR vehemently argued and contended that

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

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

section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully

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

M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

249,568 Nil N.A. Originally, the whole of 80IC 143(3) deduction @30% eligible was allowed by the AO. But, later on, the Principal CIT u/s 263 has directed to disallow the deduction u/s 80IC as per the Asstt. Year 2010-11. But the ITAT cancelled the order of the Principal CIT passed u/s 263 and no appeal

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

249,568 Nil N.A. Originally, the whole of 80IC 143(3) deduction @30% eligible was allowed by the AO. But, later on, the Principal CIT u/s 263 has directed to disallow the deduction u/s 80IC as per the Asstt. Year 2010-11. But the ITAT cancelled the order of the Principal CIT passed u/s 263 and no appeal

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT. LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

249,568 Nil N.A. Originally, the whole of 80IC 143(3) deduction @30% eligible was allowed by the AO. But, later on, the Principal CIT u/s 263 has directed to disallow the deduction u/s 80IC as per the Asstt. Year 2010-11. But the ITAT cancelled the order of the Principal CIT passed u/s 263 and no appeal

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

249,568 Nil N.A. Originally, the whole of 80IC 143(3) deduction @30% eligible was allowed by the AO. But, later on, the Principal CIT u/s 263 has directed to disallow the deduction u/s 80IC as per the Asstt. Year 2010-11. But the ITAT cancelled the order of the Principal CIT passed u/s 263 and no appeal