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

disallowed by the AO have in fact been found to be actively engaged in rendering their respective services as is proved from the fact that during the course of survey on the assessee and the post survey enquiries, ail these parties have given their statements vis- a- vi s the salary being drawn by them from the Society

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

disallowed by the AO have in fact been found to be actively engaged in rendering their respective services as is proved from the fact that during the course of survey on the assessee and the post survey enquiries, ail these parties have given their statements vis- a- vi s the salary being drawn by them from the Society

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

disallowed by the AO have in fact been found to be actively engaged in rendering their respective services as is proved from the fact that during the course of survey on the assessee and the post survey enquiries, ail these parties have given their statements vis- a- vi s the salary being drawn by them from the Society

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

disallowed by the AO have in fact been found to be actively engaged in rendering their respective services as is proved from the fact that during the course of survey on the assessee and the post survey enquiries, ail these parties have given their statements vis- a- vi s the salary being drawn by them from the Society

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

disallowed by the AO have in fact been found to be actively engaged in rendering their respective services as is proved from the fact that during the course of survey on the assessee and the post survey enquiries, ail these parties have given their statements vis- a- vi s the salary being drawn by them from the Society

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

disallowed by the AO have in fact been found to be actively engaged in rendering their respective services as is proved from the fact that during the course of survey on the assessee and the post survey enquiries, ail these parties have given their statements vis- a- vi s the salary being drawn by them from the Society

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

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

3) and rule 8D w.e.f. A.Y. 2008-09. The amended provision of 14A states that if the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of assessee's claim in respect of expenditure in relation to exempt income or where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to exempt income, then rule 8D(2) is mandatory

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

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

3) and rule 8D w.e.f. A.Y. 2008-09. The amended provision of 14A states that if the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of assessee's claim in respect of expenditure in relation to exempt income or where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to exempt income, then rule 8D(2) is mandatory

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

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

3) and rule 8D w.e.f. A.Y. 2008-09. The amended provision of 14A states that if the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of assessee's claim in respect of expenditure in relation to exempt income or where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to exempt income, then rule 8D(2) is mandatory

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

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

3) and rule 8D w.e.f. A.Y. 2008-09. The amended provision of 14A states that if the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of assessee's claim in respect of expenditure in relation to exempt income or where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to exempt income, then rule 8D(2) is mandatory

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

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

3) and rule 8D w.e.f. A.Y. 2008-09. The amended provision of 14A states that if the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of assessee's claim in respect of expenditure in relation to exempt income or where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to exempt income, then rule 8D(2) is mandatory

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

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

3) and rule 8D w.e.f. A.Y. 2008-09. The amended provision of 14A states that if the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of assessee's claim in respect of expenditure in relation to exempt income or where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to exempt income, then rule 8D(2) is mandatory

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

172 to 180] 2014-15 16,47,360/- 25,00,000/- 41,47,360/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 2015-16 19,00,800/- 25,00,000/- 44,00,800/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 6.5 It was further submitted that the provisions of section 13(l)(c) r.w.s

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

172 to 180] 2014-15 16,47,360/- 25,00,000/- 41,47,360/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 2015-16 19,00,800/- 25,00,000/- 44,00,800/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 6.5 It was further submitted that the provisions of section 13(l)(c) r.w.s

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

172 to 180] 2014-15 16,47,360/- 25,00,000/- 41,47,360/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 2015-16 19,00,800/- 25,00,000/- 44,00,800/- Accepted and tax was charged u/s 164(2) 6.5 It was further submitted that the provisions of section 13(l)(c) r.w.s

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

disallowed and taxed on maximum marginal rate u/s 164(2) of the I.T. Act. 4.1 In response, the assessee submitted as under:- “As regards to query regarding applicability of section 11(1) read with section 13(l)(c) of the Act, we want to state that the assessee society had paid an amount of Rs. 54,00,000/- as salary

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

disallowed and taxed on maximum marginal rate u/s 164(2) of the I.T. Act. 4.1 In response, the assessee submitted as under:- “As regards to query regarding applicability of section 11(1) read with section 13(l)(c) of the Act, we want to state that the assessee society had paid an amount of Rs. 54,00,000/- as salary

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

disallowed and taxed on maximum marginal rate u/s 164(2) of the I.T. Act. 4.1 In response, the assessee submitted as under:- “As regards to query regarding applicability of section 11(1) read with section 13(l)(c) of the Act, we want to state that the assessee society had paid an amount of Rs. 54,00,000/- as salary