ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

capital expenditure33 or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively33 for the purposes of the business33 or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 34[35[Explanation 1.]—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

5) CIT Vs. New India Maritime Agencies (1994) 207 ITR 392(Mad) 22. It has been consistently held by courts in the aforestated decisions that where a house property is occupied as residence by employees or its directors to 18 A.Y.2015-16 enable them to discharge their functions effectively and the letting out is subservient and incidental to the main business

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

capital gain by adopting the rate as on 1.4.1981 and other grounds of appeals with regard to not allowing full deduction u/s 54B. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessees before us for the ground mentioned above . Submissions of AR 8. AR had been submitted that notice issued under section 148 on the issue

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

d) ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held that when Assessee has already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its 8 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

d. CIT v. Shahi Export House [2010] 195 taxman 163 (Delhi HC) e. DCIT vs. G. G. Continental Traders (P.) Ltd. [2023] 151 taxmann.com 384 (Amritsar - Trib.) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 5 7.2. Hence, going by the above judgements, I hold that the income earned on such fixed deposits were rightly admitted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

d. CIT v. Shahi Export House [2010] 195 taxman 163 (Delhi HC) e. DCIT vs. G. G. Continental Traders (P.) Ltd. [2023] 151 taxmann.com 384 (Amritsar - Trib.) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 5 7.2. Hence, going by the above judgements, I hold that the income earned on such fixed deposits were rightly admitted

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

gains from infrastructure undertakings - Assessment year 2003-04 - Assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IA from its captive power plant unit - Assessing Officer allowed assessee's claim - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) reduced amount of deduction for following reasons: firstly, assessee had taken into account electricity tax levied by State Government while 527-Asr-2024 Satia Industries, Muktsar 40 working

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

gains’; to section 23A(1), providing an artificial dividend payout at a minimum of 60%, lest the shortfall therein be liable to super-tax, i.e., restraining the company from accumulating its’ profit beyond 40% to build up reserves or to provide for 25 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT capital expenditure

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

43 Assessment Year: 2018-19 of judgment is in favour of assessee. The ld. DR respectfully relied on the order of Hon’ble Orrisa High Court, but the claim is restricted before the ld. AO. Pursuing the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltdthere is no impingement in power of section

SHRI SIMERDEEP SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 260/Asr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessmentyear: 2016-17) Shri Simerdeep Singh Dcit बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 833 Urban Estate Phase-I Central Circle-1 Jalandhar- 144001. Jalandhar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abrps-8245-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : S/Shri J. S. Bhasin (Advocate)& A. P. Singh (Ca) –Ld.Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Vandana Vijay Mohite (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of an order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana, [CIT(A)] dated 23-11-2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 153A