DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST KARTARPUR, KARTARPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 2(15). The Tribunal, therefore, rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance of exemption. 74. It cannot possibly

DCIT, C-1 (EXPEMTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 2(15). The Tribunal, therefore, rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance of exemption. 74. It cannot possibly

JCIT (OSD), (EXEMPTIONS), C-1, CHANDIGARH vs. PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 2(15) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO asked the assessee to justify its claim and after hearing the assessee rejected the claim of the assessee. The AO rejected the claim of the of the assessee and after making addition on account of disallowance

DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH vs. THE PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 2(15) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO asked the assessee to justify its claim and after hearing the assessee rejected the claim of the assessee. The AO rejected the claim of the of the assessee and after making addition on account of disallowance

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST, PATIALA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 are dismissed and appeal pertaining to the Assessment year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 2(15) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO asked the assessee to justify its claim and after hearing the assessee rejected the claim of the assessee. The AO rejected the claim of the of the assessee and after making addition on account of disallowance

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

15).\nAdditionally, the Appellant is covered by the provisions of section 10(46),\nwhich provides exemption to statutory bodies established under law and duly\nnotified by the Central Government. The nature of the receipts and their\napplication have been consistently disclosed in the accounts, which reflect the\nBoard's compliance with statutory provisions.\n2.3 The statutory cess credited

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

15).\nAdditionally, the Appellant is covered by the provisions of section 10(46),\nwhich provides exemption to statutory bodies established under law and duly\nnotified by the Central Government. The nature of the receipts and their\napplication have been consistently disclosed in the accounts, which reflect the\nBoard's compliance with statutory provisions.\n2.3 The statutory cess credited

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

15).\nAdditionally, the Appellant is covered by the provisions of section 10(46),\nwhich provides exemption to statutory bodies established under law and duly\nnotified by the Central Government. The nature of the receipts and their\napplication have been consistently disclosed in the accounts, which reflect the\nBoard's compliance with statutory provisions.\n\n2.3 The statutory cess credited

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

15).\nAdditionally, the Appellant is covered by the provisions of section 10(46),\nwhich provides exemption to statutory bodies established under law and duly\nnotified by the Central Government. The nature of the receipts and their\napplication have been consistently disclosed in the accounts, which reflect the\nBoard's compliance with statutory provisions.\n\n2.3 The statutory cess credited

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST KHANNA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, KHANNA

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

15) of the Act and hence section 13(8) is applicable in the appellant's case and the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act and by affirming addition made on account of disallowing

M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST KHANNA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, KHANNA

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

15) of the Act and hence section 13(8) is applicable in the appellant's case and the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act and by affirming addition made on account of disallowing

M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST KHANNA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, KHANNA

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

15) of the Act and hence section 13(8) is applicable in the appellant's case and the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act and by affirming addition made on account of disallowing