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

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

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

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

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

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

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

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

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

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

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

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

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

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

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

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

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

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

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

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

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

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

15) of the Act. (b) Regarding alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section 13(3)(c) of the Act had no application at the very threshold. The relevant finding

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 treat unexplained investments, 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

INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD II(1), JALANDHAR

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

House property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under Section 56 of the Act. The Company may also, as in the present case, keep the surplus fund in short-term FDRs in order to earn interest. Such interests will be chargeable under Section

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

15. We have considered the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we are of the opinion that there is no sale or transfer of any capital assets whatsoever, and as such, the provision of section 45 of he Act, does not apply in this case. The residential house property

SHRI ADARSH KUMAR NAGPAL,ABOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), ABOHAR

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

section 69 of the Act against the payment of Motor Vehicle Tax on behalf of the business concern. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the addition relating to the rent received in cash. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of personal savings. 5. That

GEETA VASHISTHA,TALWANDI BHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Housing Loan of Rs. 15 lacs through Union Bank of India vide Bank Draft no.35287057 dated 12.10.2017. But assessee in her reply dated 16.02.2023 has agreed to have sufficient cash at the time of purchase of immovable property but the source of which remain unexplained. From the above it is established that the assessee along with her husband has paid

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

section 54F was withdrawn and the total sale amount of Rs.33 lacs was added back with the total income of the assessee. Further, the grievance of the assessee was that the case was reopened u/s 148 pursuing the order of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08 on the year the property was transferred. But the addition would

SMT. ASHA CHHABRA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the ground no

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

15,00,000/-form different persons but failed to prove the identity and capacity of the donors as well as genuineness of the gifts so received. Also the assessee failed to bring on record the gift deed, if any, executed, consent/acceptance of gift and the eve/occasion on which the said gifts were received. 2.2 The assessee has further stated that