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

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 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

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

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

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned internal

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned internal

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned internal

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

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

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 has been inherited by the assessee

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

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

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

15. It is evident from the assessment Order that the assessee was not in the business of the real estate and the transaction in question is an isolated transaction as the assessee is not doing business of real estate Accordingly, the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siddarth J. Desai