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

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

property of the trust or the institution is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 13, the provisions of s. 11 shall not operate granting benefit of exemption to the trust. The AO had recorded that certain payments, were made to Bibi Parkash Kaur (trustee), S. Barjinder Singh

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

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

property of the trust or the institution is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 13, the provisions of s. 11 shall not operate granting benefit of exemption to the trust. The AO had recorded that certain payments, were made to Bibi Parkash Kaur (trustee), S. Barjinder Singh

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

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

property of the trust or the institution is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 13, the provisions of s. 11 shall not operate granting benefit of exemption to the trust. The AO had recorded that certain payments, were made to Bibi Parkash Kaur (trustee), S. Barjinder Singh

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

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

property of the trust or the institution is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 13, the provisions of s. 11 shall not operate granting benefit of exemption to the trust. The AO had recorded that certain payments, were made to Bibi Parkash Kaur (trustee), S. Barjinder Singh

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

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

property of the trust or the institution is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 13, the provisions of s. 11 shall not operate granting benefit of exemption to the trust. The AO had recorded that certain payments, were made to Bibi Parkash Kaur (trustee), S. Barjinder Singh

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

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

property of the trust or the institution is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 13, the provisions of s. 11 shall not operate granting benefit of exemption to the trust. The AO had recorded that certain payments, were made to Bibi Parkash Kaur (trustee), S. Barjinder Singh

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

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

property of the trust or the institution is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 13, the provisions of s. 11 shall not operate granting benefit of exemption to the trust. The AO had recorded that certain payments, were made to Bibi Parkash Kaur (trustee), S. Barjinder Singh

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

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

property of the trust or the institution is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 13, the provisions of s. 11 shall not operate granting benefit of exemption to the trust. The AO had recorded that certain payments, were made to Bibi Parkash Kaur (trustee), S. Barjinder Singh

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

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

property of the trust or the institution is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 13, the provisions of s. 11 shall not operate granting benefit of exemption to the trust. The AO had recorded that certain payments, were made to Bibi Parkash Kaur (trustee), S. Barjinder Singh

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

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

property of the trust or the institution is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-s. (3) of s. 13, the provisions of s. 11 shall not operate granting benefit of exemption to the trust. The AO had recorded that certain payments, were made to Bibi Parkash Kaur (trustee), S. Barjinder Singh

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3,, SRINAGAR vs. M/S JYOTI LIMITED , SRINAGAR

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

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

section 23 of the Act. This was consistent with the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 08.12.2010 for the assessment year 2008-09. In the reassessment, the income was assessed as income from house property. I.T.A. No.612/Asr/2017 8 Assessment Year: 2014-15 9. The decision in ‘Chennai Properties And Investments Limited’ (supra), rendered

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

House Property. The assessee wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act at Rs. 116,48,50,757/- and wrongly set it off against declared income of the current year. Hence, the income of Rs.4.32.80,900/- which was chargeable to tax for the year under consideration escaped assessment on account of wrong presentation of facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

House Property. The assessee wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act at Rs. 116,48,50,757/- and wrongly set it off against declared income of the current year. Hence, the income of Rs.4.32.80,900/- which was chargeable to tax for the year under consideration escaped assessment on account of wrong presentation of facts

M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Houses of the State Legislature with retrospective effect from 01- 04-1998 and having received the Hon'ble Governor's assent on 13-08-2015, the Government of Karnataka notified the same as the VTU (Amendment) Act, 2015 (the Amendment Act), vide its notification dated 18-08-2015. Again the assessee made another application for registration under section 12AA

M/S LORD MAHAVIR HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE & HOSPITAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Houses of the State Legislature with retrospective effect from 01- 04-1998 and having received the Hon'ble Governor's assent on 13-08-2015, the Government of Karnataka notified the same as the VTU (Amendment) Act, 2015 (the Amendment Act), vide its notification dated 18-08-2015. Again the assessee made another application for registration under section 12AA

LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPHATIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Houses of the State Legislature with retrospective effect from 01- 04-1998 and having received the Hon'ble Governor's assent on 13-08-2015, the Government of Karnataka notified the same as the VTU (Amendment) Act, 2015 (the Amendment Act), vide its notification dated 18-08-2015. Again the assessee made another application for registration under section 12AA

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

house property” and consequential claim of depredation under section 32 of the Act, being supported by various decisions of the High Courts could not have been termed as erroneous. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the PCIT failed to appreciate that business expenditure as claimed by the Appellant for the purposes of carrying its business activities having a direct nexus

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

house property for purpose of residence. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant is, therefore, rejected. Ground of appeal No.6: is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 3. The Revenue department on aggrieved against the order impugned herein preferred its appeal on the following grounds. "1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

house property for purpose of residence. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant is, therefore, rejected. Ground of appeal No.6: is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 3. The Revenue department on aggrieved against the order impugned herein preferred its appeal on the following grounds. "1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right