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

43,37,0 83/- 35,12,725/- (32.45 %) Total (24.44 %) The above mentioned chart clearly shows that there is huge increasing into the salary from A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 and 2012-13 to 2013-14. The percentage of increasing is between 40.73 % to 11.01 %, which can not be considered as reasonable payments. It is also mentioned that this

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

43,37,0 83/- 35,12,725/- (32.45 %) Total (24.44 %) The above mentioned chart clearly shows that there is huge increasing into the salary from A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 and 2012-13 to 2013-14. The percentage of increasing is between 40.73 % to 11.01 %, which can not be considered as reasonable payments. It is also mentioned that this

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

43,37,0 83/- 35,12,725/- (32.45 %) Total (24.44 %) The above mentioned chart clearly shows that there is huge increasing into the salary from A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 and 2012-13 to 2013-14. The percentage of increasing is between 40.73 % to 11.01 %, which can not be considered as reasonable payments. It is also mentioned that this

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

43,37,0 83/- 35,12,725/- (32.45 %) Total (24.44 %) The above mentioned chart clearly shows that there is huge increasing into the salary from A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 and 2012-13 to 2013-14. The percentage of increasing is between 40.73 % to 11.01 %, which can not be considered as reasonable payments. It is also mentioned that this

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

43,37,0 83/- 35,12,725/- (32.45 %) Total (24.44 %) The above mentioned chart clearly shows that there is huge increasing into the salary from A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 and 2012-13 to 2013-14. The percentage of increasing is between 40.73 % to 11.01 %, which can not be considered as reasonable payments. It is also mentioned that this

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

43,37,0 83/- 35,12,725/- (32.45 %) Total (24.44 %) The above mentioned chart clearly shows that there is huge increasing into the salary from A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 and 2012-13 to 2013-14. The percentage of increasing is between 40.73 % to 11.01 %, which can not be considered as reasonable payments. It is also mentioned that this

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

43,37,0 83/- 35,12,725/- (32.45 %) Total (24.44 %) The above mentioned chart clearly shows that there is huge increasing into the salary from A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 and 2012-13 to 2013-14. The percentage of increasing is between 40.73 % to 11.01 %, which can not be considered as reasonable payments. It is also mentioned that this

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

43,16,890 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)-13,25,63,667). In addition, we are enclosing copy of Depreciation Chart as per Companies Act, 2013 of Power Division (Eligible Unit) and Other Division (Non-Eligible Units) as Annexure-F and Copy of Depreciation Chart as per Income Tax Rules for Power Division (Eligible unit) and Other Divisions (Non-Eligible

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

43,16,890 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)-13,25,63,667). In addition, we are enclosing copy of Depreciation Chart as per Companies Act, 2013 of Power Division (Eligible Unit) and Other Division (Non-Eligible Units) as Annexure-F and Copy of Depreciation Chart as per Income Tax Rules for Power Division (Eligible unit) and Other Divisions (Non-Eligible

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year 2014-15 and ten grounds of appeal in assessment year 2015-16. In brief, its grievance revolves around the additions noticed by us in the above table and rest

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year 2014-15 and ten grounds of appeal in assessment year 2015-16. In brief, its grievance revolves around the additions noticed by us in the above table and rest

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

BABA HIRA SINGH BHATTAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,LEHRAGAGA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

6. Heard. The first issue is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is correct in upholding the addition of Rs.2,47,58,982/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act. 7. The Assessing Officer held, while making the addition, that as per the provisions of Sections

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court