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 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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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)

35), Universities (2), Medical Colleges (1), Dental College (1), Nursing College (1), Engineering Colleges (2) & Polytechnic College (1), Hospitals, Lungars, Sarais, Educational Aid, Aid to Poor, Medical Aid, Aid for Historical Buildings, Cancer Aid, Aid for Natural Calamities like Earthquakes/Droughts, Aid for Social Awareness like drugs, dowry etc. b. Further, it is a publicly known fact that the aforesaid charitable

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

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

house 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

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

ii. Income & Expenditure Account iii. Receipts & Payment Account b. Nazul Account - Receipts & Payment Account. 3A.2.3.6.It is prayed to your kind honour to kindly take the revised accounts as above on record to correctly determine the income taxable in the hands of the appellant after including the income that is accruing to the appellant and duly allowing the expenditure deductible

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

ii. Income & Expenditure Account iii. Receipts & Payment Account b. Nazul Account - Receipts & Payment Account. 3A.2.3.6.It is prayed to your kind honour to kindly take the revised accounts as above on record to correctly determine the income taxable in the hands of the appellant after including the income that is accruing to the appellant and duly allowing the expenditure deductible

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

35 DTR 142 (Bom. Since an enquiry was specifically held with reference to which a disclosure of details was called for by the Assessing Officer and made by the assessee, the observation of the CIT that the Assessing Officer had arrived at his findings without conducting an enquiry was erroneous and therefore the CIT wrongly exercised the powers by recourse

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

35 [please see para no. 8 on the reverse of page no. 32] CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society - 397 ITR 344 [Supreme Court]: It was held by the Supreme Court that even where the seized documents indicating capitation fee received were not co-related with assessment years in question, the notice issued u/s 153C was rightly quashed

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

35 [please see para no. 8 on the reverse of page no. 32] CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society - 397 ITR 344 [Supreme Court]: It was held by the Supreme Court that even where the seized documents indicating capitation fee received were not co-related with assessment years in question, the notice issued u/s 153C was rightly quashed