THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHD vs. M/S AGRI KING TRACTORS AND EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: It Should Be Reinstated & Decided On Merits ?” Ii. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Is Justified In Directing The Assessing Officer To Verify The Claim Of The Assessee Having Not Earned Any Exempt Income In The Year Under Consideration & Allow The Relief Accordingly, Ignoring The Legislative Intent Anuradha 2020.01.30 16:03 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact whether any such income has been earned during

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST BATHINDA

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

disallowance of exemption. 74. It cannot possibly be suggested that the Government of Punjab formed the trusts under the Punjab

MASCOT FOOTCARE FARIDABAD THRG ITS PARTNER GUNJAN LAKHANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD (HARYANA)

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

disallowance u/s Section 14A is to be computed as an aggregate of the following: 1.Expenditure directly incurred for earning exempt

M/S PANCHSHEEL TEXTILE MANFAC. & TRAD. vs. C I T AND ANR.

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

exempted dividend income un es.' As such, the aid of section 1 r view is unnecessary. 00 and 2000-01, the assessee ell as dividend income. The AO in assessment year 98-99 in reg see of M/S Vardhman Polytex L der for assessment year 98-99. ability of provisions of section 1 e to 15% of the disallowance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ROHTAK vs. M/S CRYSTAL PHOSPHATES LTD

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

disallowance of Rs.5,60,207/- and the appeal of the assessee was pending before CIT (A) and as per the CBDT instructions contained in Scrutiny Guidelines for F.Y. 2007-08 in clause 2 (v) (b) provided that all cases in which an appeal was pending before the CIT (A) against an addition/disallowance of Rs.5 lakhs or above, or the Department

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) GURUGRAM vs. M/S MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY TRUST

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

exemption of accumulation of 15% of the gross receipts and computed the same as under:- “Income from other sources Income from other sources Net surplus as per income & expenditure : 19,58,26,770.17 account Add: Development fund receipts as discussed in para 4. : 7.22.96.300.00 26,81,23,070.17 Less: 15% set apart or accumulated u/s 11(1)(a) : 4.02.18.461.00 Income