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

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 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

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

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

1) of the Act. However, on the reopening of the completed assessment, in the revised return, the income was offered as income from property, in accordance with the provisions of section 22 read with 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

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

1) of I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 6 the Act. since the presence of business is absent in the present case, which however, is an elementary concept for an income to fall under the head profits & gains of business or profession. Section 28 of the Act is reproduced as under- "28 The following income

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

1) of I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 6 the Act. since the presence of business is absent in the present case, which however, is an elementary concept for an income to fall under the head profits & gains of business or profession. Section 28 of the Act is reproduced as under- "28 The following income

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

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

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

property to which the aforesaid Notice u/s 148, dated 11.03.2015 was addressed, without putting up any efforts to locate the whereabouts of the assessee, which he could have easily gathered by going no further but referring/consulting the assessment records of the assessee, had however, most arbitrarily by way of an idle formality, or, in fact, an eye wash

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 85A would be discharging and performing various religious duties, ceremonies in connection with the gurdwaras along with efficient management of property and income of Gurdwaras and endowments thereof . 22. Now the question arises whether a statutory body which is created by the Statutory for the purpose of performing religious duties, administration of properties, income and endowment, can be said

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