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

2) of the Act as period of four years from the end of assessment year under consideration has not expired.” 4.3 Eventually, the re-assessment has been completed by the AO on a total income of Rs.2,30,15,640/- (including Rs.2.26 crores assessed under the head “income from house property” and an amount of Rs.3,83,429/- as “income

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

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 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 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

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

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

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

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

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and duly held by the assesse for the last 17 years thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. 4.2 In our considered view as it is not in doubt that the assessee was in possession of the land for the last around

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

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and duly held by the assesse for the last 17 years thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. 4.2 In our considered view as it is not in doubt that the assessee was in possession of the land for the last around

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

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

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

SH. RAGHUNATH SAHAI PURI(DECD),PATHANKOT vs. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATHANKOT

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

House Building Society Ltd., Mohali (facts discussed in detail supra) and arising to the appellant was disclosed in the revised return of the income by the appellant on 07.01.2010 but vide order u/s 143(3) the assessment of LTCG has been framed at RS.1,75,36,744/-. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by me in appeal