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

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

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

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

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

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

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

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

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

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

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

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

366 7780.47 iii) 2014-15 344485.01 207,06,67,668 6010.91 III. It is submitted that sale realization of guar gum in the instant year is as under: Period Amount Sr. Weight (in Average Rate No. qtls) i) 69165.15 105,05,70,605 15189.31 Pre survey upto 17.11.2014 ii) 40397.30 43,10,88,226 10671.21 Post survey

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

366 of the paper book filed by the learned AR, which records the following observations: “An admitted fact which is common in all these appeals that while disbursing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector had deducted the tax at source and deposited the same with the Income Tax Department. These appellants preferred the writ petition in the High Court stating

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

366 of the paper book filed by the learned AR, which records the following observations: “An admitted fact which is common in all these appeals that while disbursing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector had deducted the tax at source and deposited the same with the Income Tax Department. These appellants preferred the writ petition in the High Court stating

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

366 of the paper book filed by the learned AR, which records the following observations: “An admitted fact which is common in all these appeals that while disbursing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector had deducted the tax at source and deposited the same with the Income Tax Department. These appellants preferred the writ petition in the High Court stating

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

366 of the paper book filed by the learned AR, which records the following observations: “An admitted fact which is common in all these appeals that while disbursing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector had deducted the tax at source and deposited the same with the Income Tax Department. These appellants preferred the writ petition in the High Court stating

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

366 of the paper book filed by the learned AR, which records the following observations: “An admitted fact which is common in all these appeals that while disbursing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector had deducted the tax at source and deposited the same with the Income Tax Department. These appellants preferred the writ petition in the High Court stating

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

366 of the paper book filed by the learned AR, which records the following observations: “An admitted fact which is common in all these appeals that while disbursing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector had deducted the tax at source and deposited the same with the Income Tax Department. These appellants preferred the writ petition in the High Court stating

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

366 of the paper book filed by the learned AR, which records the following observations: “An admitted fact which is common in all these appeals that while disbursing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector had deducted the tax at source and deposited the same with the Income Tax Department. These appellants preferred the writ petition in the High Court stating

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

366 of the paper book filed by the learned AR, which records the following observations: “An admitted fact which is common in all these appeals that while disbursing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector had deducted the tax at source and deposited the same with the Income Tax Department. These appellants preferred the writ petition in the High Court stating

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

366 of the paper book filed by the learned AR, which records the following observations: “An admitted fact which is common in all these appeals that while disbursing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector had deducted the tax at source and deposited the same with the Income Tax Department. These appellants preferred the writ petition in the High Court stating