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

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

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

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

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

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

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

35, no such mention has been made by the appellant. Now, in the appeal proceedings the AR of the appellant is submitting that the appellant has sold the property 377, Shardanand Gali Court, Jalandhar at which the AO has affixed the notices and assessment order. No further substantiation with evidence has been made either before AO or in the appellate

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. RAJNI 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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JALANDHAR, 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

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. RAJNI 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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 JALANDHAR, 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. RAJNI 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