SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed. It was submitted that non acceptance

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed. It was submitted that non acceptance

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed. It was submitted that non acceptance

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed. It was submitted that non acceptance

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed. It was submitted that non acceptance

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed. It was submitted that non acceptance

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and/ or relevant

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

disallowed from the gross dividend income received by the assessee. From the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it was clear that the assessment was sought to be reopened merely on suspicion that the assessee might have utilized the borrowed fund for investment and that the assessee might have incurred expenditure for earning the dividend income. There was no material

MOONAK WELFARE SOCIETY,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SUNAM

In the result, we direct the AO to allow the exemption u/s 11 to the assessee society

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). 3.1 It Was Submitted During The Appellate Proceedings That The Cpc, Bangalore While Processing The Return Of Income Has Disallowed The Exemption On The Ground That Tax Audit Report In Form 10B Should Have Been Filed One Month Prior To The Filing

disallowing its claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act. 4. Against the said findings and directions of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that though CPC, Bangalore has initially denied the exemption under section 11 on account of fact that Form

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

153 Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (AY 6,27,75,303 2010-11) Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure on AME 15,17,461 Course Disallowance of Donation 1,10,000 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

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

153 Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (AY 6,27,75,303 2010-11) Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure on AME 15,17,461 Course Disallowance of Donation 1,10,000 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

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

153(3) of the Act. 12. That being aggrieved by the impugned order under section 263 the assessee firm is before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 : 1. That the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Chandigarh has wrongly and hurriedly passed order under section 263 of Income Tax Act without making

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of Foreign Travelling Expenses. Out of the aforesaid additions, the addition of Rs. 3,15,213/- was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 24/10/2016 in Appeal No. 149/2014- 15 and the A.O. herself dropped the penalty on the addition of Rs. 1,40,955/-, the only addition which remained intact for the purposes of levying penalty

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR 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)

1) of the Act only if the factual verifications as above directed to be carried out by the JAO are found to yield results inconsistent with the stand of the assessee. This is because the order then would not have been passed in accordance with the law, which should have been done, thus making such assessment order passed not only