KAY SWITCGEARS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

35. It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act, 1987, introduced to section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions, in the Finance Bill, 1987, presented to the Parliament, is extracted below: "Measures of penalising employers mis-utilising

SHRI SACHIN KAPUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

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

35. It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act, 1987, introduced to section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions, in the Finance Bill, 1987, presented to the Parliament, is extracted below: "Measures of penalising employers mis-utilising

M/S. RAMCO ENGG WORKS ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

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

35. It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act, 1987, introduced to section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions, in the Finance Bill, 1987, presented to the Parliament, is extracted below: "Measures of penalising employers mis-utilising

NAVODIA TIMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

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

35. It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act, 1987, introduced to section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions, in the Finance Bill, 1987, presented to the Parliament, is extracted below: "Measures of penalising employers mis-utilising

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 (1) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

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

35. It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act, 1987, introduced to section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in I.T.A. Nos. 8 & 9/Asr/2023 9 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions, in the Finance Bill, 1987, presented

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

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

35. It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act, 1987, introduced to section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in I.T.A. Nos. 8 & 9/Asr/2023 9 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions, in the Finance Bill, 1987, presented

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

35. It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act, 1987, introduced to section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions, in the Finance Bill, 1987, presented to the Parliament, is extracted below: "Measures of penalising employers mis-utilising

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus