SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also the approval granted is without DIN. 4. (a) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO, in making an addition of Rs.2,11,81,016/-, on account

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also the approval granted is without DIN. 4. (a) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO, in making an addition of Rs.2,11,81,016/-, on account

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

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

section 143(1), Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment proceedings subsequently on basis of information supplied by Investigation wing of department that assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties. 6 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (ii) Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) (iii) Priya Blue Industries [2021] 130 taxmann.com 492 (Gujarat

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

151 of the act by way of writing “Yes, It is a fit case”, in the approval form, as we understand that the Addl./Joint CIT was not required to reiterate the reasons recorded by the assessing officer under section 147 of the act. Thus ground number 3 and 4 of the appellant are rejected. Adjudication on merits

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before