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

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

254 ITR 268.In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(l)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

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

254 ITR 268.In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(l)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

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

254 ITR 268.In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(l)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

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

254 ITR 268.In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(l)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

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

254 ITR 268.In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(l)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

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

254 ITR 268.In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(l)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

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

254 ITR 268.In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(l)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

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

254 ITR 268.In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(l)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

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

254 ITR 268.In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(l)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

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

254 ITR 268.In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(l)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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)

254(1) of the 1961 Act), the Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the Assessee by the AO. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the present case, we are of the view that, in this case, the AO had granted depreciation in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXQ, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property ”, which proves the fact that ,the said premises are let out/leased out , on rent to the above tenants/ lessees , are already in the knowledge of the department , since inception, and the rental income disclosed in regular returns are duly accepted by the department in normal course. 18. It is also seen that all the above four concerns