DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman

DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

section 11 4 Profit of chemist shop not a single penny was paid to any utilized by the trustees trustee in any shape by the trust nor the A.O. has given any instance of payment to trustees out of chemist shop HUGE PROFIT ---- 1 Trust is earning huge profit Firstly profit of 5.96% to 14.08 % is that is from

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

SH. BALJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced