INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

139(1) on 29.11.2008 may be treated as the return of income filed in compliance to the said notice. Acting upon the aforesaid request, the A.O framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 26.03.2013 at an income of Rs. 2,08,51,000/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount of Addition/disallowance

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

139(1) on 29.11.2008 may be treated as the return of income filed in compliance to the said notice. Acting upon the aforesaid request, the A.O framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 26.03.2013 at an income of Rs. 2,08,51,000/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount of Addition/disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED, TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 143(3) on being questioned about the purchases made from the said concern., in his detailed replies along with documentary evidences filed with the Assessing officer provided all the copies of Purchase Invoices, Confirmation of Truck numbers from Vahan, Reverse Side of purchase invoices duly mentioning the weight confirmation, Stacking details, Shortages if any, Cash discounts deducted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED , TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 143(3) on being questioned about the purchases made from the said concern., in his detailed replies along with documentary evidences filed with the Assessing officer provided all the copies of Purchase Invoices, Confirmation of Truck numbers from Vahan, Reverse Side of purchase invoices duly mentioning the weight confirmation, Stacking details, Shortages if any, Cash discounts deducted

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

139, along with audited financials and audit report , has been under complete scrutiny in course of which all particulars of purchase and sales has been filed and examined to the satisfaction of the AO and assessment completed u/s 143(3) dated 24/10/2016, on a total income of Rs.5.09 lakhs, with a minor estimated disallowance of Rs. 60,000/- on account

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

139 140) "INCOME TAX: SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where Assessing Officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares an basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not connected with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so- called

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, "belongs to; or 7 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

purchase ESCerts. l. The energy saving certificates (ESCerts) are also issued as the energy saving also reduces the emission of carbon heat & gases. m. It is submitted that the receipts generated from the sale proceeds of RECs/ESCerts are not liable to tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

139) ii) New Storage 58,48,50,242/- (145) 20000000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) 1,54,42,626/- (Receipt in the instant 1.8 It may be thus, evident that such subsidy cannot be said to be an amount which has been received directly or indirectly to meet the cost of the assets acquired by the appellant company

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

139) ii) New Storage 58,48,50,242/- (145) 20000000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) 1,54,42,626/- (Receipt in the instant 1.8 It may be thus, evident that such subsidy cannot be said to be an amount which has been received directly or indirectly to meet the cost of the assets acquired by the appellant company

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

139) ii) New Storage 58,48,50,242/- (145) 20000000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) 1,54,42,626/- (Receipt in the instant 1.8 It may be thus, evident that such subsidy cannot be said to be an amount which has been received directly or indirectly to meet the cost of the assets acquired by the appellant company

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

139) ii) New Storage 58,48,50,242/- (145) 20000000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) 1,54,42,626/- (Receipt in the instant 1.8 It may be thus, evident that such subsidy cannot be said to be an amount which has been received directly or indirectly to meet the cost of the assets acquired by the appellant company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

139) ii) New Storage 58,48,50,242/- (145) 20000000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) 1,54,42,626/- (Receipt in the instant 1.8 It may be thus, evident that such subsidy cannot be said to be an amount which has been received directly or indirectly to meet the cost of the assets acquired by the appellant company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

139) ii) New Storage 58,48,50,242/- (145) 20000000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) 1,54,42,626/- (Receipt in the instant 1.8 It may be thus, evident that such subsidy cannot be said to be an amount which has been received directly or indirectly to meet the cost of the assets acquired by the appellant company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

139) ii) New Storage 58,48,50,242/- (145) 20000000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) 1,54,42,626/- (Receipt in the instant 1.8 It may be thus, evident that such subsidy cannot be said to be an amount which has been received directly or indirectly to meet the cost of the assets acquired by the appellant company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

139) ii) New Storage 58,48,50,242/- (145) 20000000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) 1,54,42,626/- (Receipt in the instant 1.8 It may be thus, evident that such subsidy cannot be said to be an amount which has been received directly or indirectly to meet the cost of the assets acquired by the appellant company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

139) ii) New Storage 58,48,50,242/- (145) 20000000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) 1,54,42,626/- (Receipt in the instant 1.8 It may be thus, evident that such subsidy cannot be said to be an amount which has been received directly or indirectly to meet the cost of the assets acquired by the appellant company

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

139) ii) New Storage 58,48,50,242/- (145) 20000000/- (Received in the AY 2009-10) 1,54,42,626/- (Receipt in the instant 1.8 It may be thus, evident that such subsidy cannot be said to be an amount which has been received directly or indirectly to meet the cost of the assets acquired by the appellant company