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

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 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

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

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

DEPUTY 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 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

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 on 09.04,2015, has prompted the assessee to seek torevert to its original stand of contending

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

13) of the Act, and hence, it has to be treated as business of the Appellant. I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 2 6.2. The AO has rejected the claim of deduction made under section 35AD(8)(C)(ii) of the Act, by stating that the income from warehousing is derived from house property

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

13) of the Act, and hence, it has to be treated as business of the Appellant. I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 2 6.2. The AO has rejected the claim of deduction made under section 35AD(8)(C)(ii) of the Act, by stating that the income from warehousing is derived from house property

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

property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in fact in deleting the addition of Rsl6

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

3,00,000/- respectively By applying the price index on purchase value, indexed cost comes to Rs 8.800/- and Rs.792,000/- respectively. But the appellant credited his account with amount of Rs.2.55,00,000/- instead of Rs 8,00,800/- without paying any tax Therefore the appellant was given final opportunity to explain as to why the amount

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House property, Income from Business/Profession” and ‘Income from other sources”. Though, the nature of activities in both the proprietorship concerns is same i.e. wholesale trading of products of “Haldiram’s” but in M/s Pioneer Sales, the gross profit has been shown @ 3.47% whereas in M/s Apex Marketing it is 4%. The AO has failed to verify the reasons for difference

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), JAMMU vs. ANITA KAPAHI, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

3) of 1922 Act he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all - Held, yes - Whether where, on request of Tribunal, departmental representative had produced certain material, Tribunal should have given an opportunity to assessee to rebut such material and 7 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

3) , without any variation of the quantum surrendered , except for the fact that the AO has applied the tax rates u/s 115BBE of the Act 61 , treating the said offer as income under the deeming provisions of section 69 of the Act 1961. 11 I.T.A. No. 542/Asr/2024 Dashmesh Timber and Furniture House v. Dy. CIT 12. The AR further relying

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69.69A, 69B and 69C meat unexplained investment, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been