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

2 above. Hence, income of Rs. 4,32,80,900/- after allowing deduction @30% from the rental income of Rs 6,18,29,857/- was chargeable to tax under the head Income from House Property. The assessee wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act at Rs. 116,48,50,757/- and wrongly set it off against

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 is occupied as residence by employees or its directors to 18 A.Y.2015-16 enable them to discharge their functions effectively and the letting out is subservient and incidental to the main business of the assessee, such an occupation amounts to an occupation and user of the property by the assessee itself for the purposes of its business. Clearly

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

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

ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ……………… 40. Resultantly, order of the Tribunal fixing salary of Mr. Joseph John to Rs. 30,000/- per month and of his wife Mrs. Sonia Joseph to Rs. 20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding

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

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

ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ……………… 40. Resultantly, order of the Tribunal fixing salary of Mr. Joseph John to Rs. 30,000/- per month and of his wife Mrs. Sonia Joseph to Rs. 20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding

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

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

ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ……………… 40. Resultantly, order of the Tribunal fixing salary of Mr. Joseph John to Rs. 30,000/- per month and of his wife Mrs. Sonia Joseph to Rs. 20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding

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

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

ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ……………… 40. Resultantly, order of the Tribunal fixing salary of Mr. Joseph John to Rs. 30,000/- per month and of his wife Mrs. Sonia Joseph to Rs. 20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding

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

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

ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ……………… 40. Resultantly, order of the Tribunal fixing salary of Mr. Joseph John to Rs. 30,000/- per month and of his wife Mrs. Sonia Joseph to Rs. 20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding

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

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

ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ……………… 40. Resultantly, order of the Tribunal fixing salary of Mr. Joseph John to Rs. 30,000/- per month and of his wife Mrs. Sonia Joseph to Rs. 20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding

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

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

ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ……………… 40. Resultantly, order of the Tribunal fixing salary of Mr. Joseph John to Rs. 30,000/- per month and of his wife Mrs. Sonia Joseph to Rs. 20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding

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

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

ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ……………… 40. Resultantly, order of the Tribunal fixing salary of Mr. Joseph John to Rs. 30,000/- per month and of his wife Mrs. Sonia Joseph to Rs. 20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding

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

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

ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ……………… 40. Resultantly, order of the Tribunal fixing salary of Mr. Joseph John to Rs. 30,000/- per month and of his wife Mrs. Sonia Joseph to Rs. 20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding

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

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

ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ……………… 40. Resultantly, order of the Tribunal fixing salary of Mr. Joseph John to Rs. 30,000/- per month and of his wife Mrs. Sonia Joseph to Rs. 20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding

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

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

ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ……………… 40. Resultantly, order of the Tribunal fixing salary of Mr. Joseph John to Rs. 30,000/- per month and of his wife Mrs. Sonia Joseph to Rs. 20,000/- per month being neither correct on facts nor in law would not hold good. When finding

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

47,44,901/-. 2. There is no other issue in the present case, because the receipts and expenses have been accepted by the department and regarding the genuineness of activity and aims and objects, there is no whisper in the order of Assessing Officer and meaning thereby, that if there would have been registration u/s 12A, then the surplus

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

47,44,901/-. 2. There is no other issue in the present case, because the receipts and expenses have been accepted by the department and regarding the genuineness of activity and aims and objects, there is no whisper in the order of Assessing Officer and meaning thereby, that if there would have been registration u/s 12A, then the surplus

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

47,44,901/-. 2. There is no other issue in the present case, because the receipts and expenses have been accepted by the department and regarding the genuineness of activity and aims and objects, there is no whisper in the order of Assessing Officer and meaning thereby, that if there would have been registration u/s 12A, then the surplus

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

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

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 80G(2)(B), the Central Government notifies places of public worship owing to their historical, archaeological, or artistic importance. The following Gurudwaras due to their historical importance have been notified u/s 80G(2)(B) by the Central Government. 1. Gurudwara Harminder Sahib, SO 1974, Dated 19.06.1965. 2. Gurudwara DukhNiwaran Sahib, SO 885, Dated 31.12.1975. 3. Gurudwara Shri Hemkunt Sahib