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

47,11,318/- as against claimed by the assessee in respect of expenditure of Rs 77,65,67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income may, subject

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

47,11,318/- as against claimed by the assessee in respect of expenditure of Rs 77,65,67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income may, subject

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

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

Housing Company Ltd. Mumbai, and the cost of which @ Rs.4500/- per sq. ft. was Rs.1,01,25,000/- and therefore, as per the above said tripartite agreement, the assessee was to receive total consideration of Rs.1,83,75,000/-. The assessee received a part payment of Rs.15,00,000/- on 24.02.2007 and another payment of Rs.18,00,000/- was received

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

Housing Company Ltd. Mumbai, and the cost of which @ Rs.4500/- per sq. ft. was Rs.1,01,25,000/- and therefore, as per the above said tripartite agreement, the assessee was to receive total consideration of Rs.1,83,75,000/-. The assessee received a part payment of Rs.15,00,000/- on 24.02.2007 and another payment of Rs.18,00,000/- was received

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

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

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 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

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

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

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