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 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. 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

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

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 INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 40A(3). The goods remain unsold as at the year-end (Yr. 1). A disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is attracted

THE AZAD NAKODAR BUS SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAKODAR vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAC CIRCL-4E, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Disallowance under section 40A(3) could not be made as identity

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. SH. DARSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN, PATHANKOT

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 566(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Adjpm7623B

disallowed under the relevant section granting deduction itself, as section 37(1) in the instant case, so that there is no occasion to travel to the non obstante provision of section 40A(3

DUPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. SH. VINOD ARORA, , BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. M/S SURJIT SINGH AND CO, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

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

3) becomes redundant. As regards the disallowance u/s 69C, the said section is not applicable in the case of the assessee