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

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

4A) or section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act. He argued that even in Assessment Year 2008-09, under identical circumstances, the Revenue has accepted this proposition. He has also filed a copy of the ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar order dated 26.02.2016 for AY 2008-09. In support, he has filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced

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

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

4A) or section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act. He argued that even in Assessment Year 2008-09, under identical circumstances, the Revenue has accepted this proposition. He has also filed a copy of the ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar order dated 26.02.2016 for AY 2008-09. In support, he has filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced

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

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

4A) or section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act. He argued that even in Assessment Year 2008-09, under identical circumstances, the Revenue has accepted this proposition. He has also filed a copy of the ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar order dated 26.02.2016 for AY 2008-09. In support, he has filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced

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

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

4A) or section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act. He argued that even in Assessment Year 2008-09, under identical circumstances, the Revenue has accepted this proposition. He has also filed a copy of the ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar order dated 26.02.2016 for AY 2008-09. In support, he has filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced

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

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

4A) or section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act. He argued that even in Assessment Year 2008-09, under identical circumstances, the Revenue has accepted this proposition. He has also filed a copy of the ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar order dated 26.02.2016 for AY 2008-09. In support, he has filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced

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

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

4A) or section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act. He argued that even in Assessment Year 2008-09, under identical circumstances, the Revenue has accepted this proposition. He has also filed a copy of the ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar order dated 26.02.2016 for AY 2008-09. In support, he has filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced

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

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

4A) or section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act. He argued that even in Assessment Year 2008-09, under identical circumstances, the Revenue has accepted this proposition. He has also filed a copy of the ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar order dated 26.02.2016 for AY 2008-09. In support, he has filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced

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

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

4A) or section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act. He argued that even in Assessment Year 2008-09, under identical circumstances, the Revenue has accepted this proposition. He has also filed a copy of the ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar order dated 26.02.2016 for AY 2008-09. In support, he has filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced

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

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

4A) or section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act. He argued that even in Assessment Year 2008-09, under identical circumstances, the Revenue has accepted this proposition. He has also filed a copy of the ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar order dated 26.02.2016 for AY 2008-09. In support, he has filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced

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

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

4A) or section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act. He argued that even in Assessment Year 2008-09, under identical circumstances, the Revenue has accepted this proposition. He has also filed a copy of the ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar order dated 26.02.2016 for AY 2008-09. In support, he has filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

House Jalandhar Cantt Road, Jalandhar PAN: AIKPK 9383L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 19.07.2017, which

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

SHRIMATI HARMOHINDER KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

property is more than what has been disclosed. There is no case that any part of the jottings in the diary has been corroborated from any other findings. Hence, in the background, we find that presumption u/s. 132(4A)/292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case, we find

M/S GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BATHINDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 598/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: N.A.

sections thereof. Running of schools and colleges by charging high fees, accumulating huge assets, could not be regarded as charitable activity. The institutions could not be allowed to grow richer and richer by extending exemption, thereby converting them into tax-exempt organizations. The present case, it was opined by him, was of a society whose activities, though involved education