CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

4) of section 13 of the Act gives the specific situation where notwithstanding what is there in section 13(1)(c) of the Act, exemption under section 11 & 12 of the Act will be denied only on part of the income and that the assessee was not covered by this sub section. The reliance was placed on the following case

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

4. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Department u/s 132 of the Act on 2.5.2012 at the business premises of the aforesaid Janta Group as well as residential premises of the promoters and directors of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that all the returns up to assessment year 2011-12 were filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

b) queries raised at serial No. 5,6,7 and 11 of the same relating to the claim of the assessee under section 80 IA placed at paper book page No. 29 to 35. The relevant queries raised in the questionnaire are as follows:” “5. As per information filed by you, it has seen that you had undertaken contract

SH. SUNIL KHULLAR,SAMRALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavi.T.A. No.137/Chandi/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Sunil Khullar........................... ………................……............…..….. Appellant C/O Sat Parkash & Company, Ward No.7, H.No.10, Kang Mohalla, Samrala. [Pan:Azqpk0380E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-Khanna....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. S. Bhasin, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2022 Order

disallowance under section 40A(3) and in further enhancing the same by Rs.16,47,597/-. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment ought to have been made by estimating the income after invoking section 145(3) when the books were found to be incomplete and incorrect, rather than making superfluously inflated additions

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

b) The questionnaire received from the Assessing Officer and the relevant queries raised at serial No. 5,6,7 and 11 of the same relating to the claim of the assessee under section 80 IA placed at paper book page No. 29 to 35. The relevant queries raised in the questionnaire are as follows: “5. As per information filed

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

b) the Assessee’s Appeal 19.1 This matter has been dealt while dealing with the issue of “Deduction under 3rd Proviso to 80HHC” above and the rationale with regard to ultra-vires of the proviso is applicable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is hereby allowed. 20. Issue No. 16: Disallowance on account of Foreign Travelling Expenses

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

b) the Assessee’s Appeal 19.1 This matter has been dealt while dealing with the issue of “Deduction under 3rd Proviso to 80HHC” above and the rationale with regard to ultra-vires of the proviso is applicable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is hereby allowed. 20. Issue No. 16: Disallowance on account of Foreign Travelling Expenses

VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

b) the Assessee’s Appeal 19.1 This matter has been dealt while dealing with the issue of “Deduction under 3rd Proviso to 80HHC” above and the rationale with regard to ultra-vires of the proviso is applicable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is hereby allowed. 20. Issue No. 16: Disallowance on account of Foreign Travelling Expenses

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

b) the Assessee’s Appeal 19.1 This matter has been dealt while dealing with the issue of “Deduction under 3rd Proviso to 80HHC” above and the rationale with regard to ultra-vires of the proviso is applicable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is hereby allowed. 20. Issue No. 16: Disallowance on account of Foreign Travelling Expenses

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

b) the Assessee’s Appeal 19.1 This matter has been dealt while dealing with the issue of “Deduction under 3rd Proviso to 80HHC” above and the rationale with regard to ultra-vires of the proviso is applicable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is hereby allowed. 20. Issue No. 16: Disallowance on account of Foreign Travelling Expenses

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

b) the Assessee’s Appeal 19.1 This matter has been dealt while dealing with the issue of “Deduction under 3rd Proviso to 80HHC” above and the rationale with regard to ultra-vires of the proviso is applicable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is hereby allowed. 20. Issue No. 16: Disallowance on account of Foreign Travelling Expenses

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

b) the Assessee’s Appeal 19.1 This matter has been dealt while dealing with the issue of “Deduction under 3rd Proviso to 80HHC” above and the rationale with regard to ultra-vires of the proviso is applicable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is hereby allowed. 20. Issue No. 16: Disallowance on account of Foreign Travelling Expenses