INDU MAHAJAN,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAX CIRCLE-5 , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

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

43B and as per the said section, the Employer contributionhastobepaidbefore the due date of filing of returnofincome under the Income Tax Act. Since, the assessee has paid the employer contribution before due date of filing of return, the addition made is against the provisions of the law.” 3. The AR mentioned that the appeal is filed with a delay

M/S GLOBE AUTO ARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- III (4), JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

delay of 1 day in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond his control. Therefore the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Since the issues involved are common in both the above appeals and the appeals were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity

M/S GLOBE AUTO PARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

delay of 1 day in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond his control. Therefore the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Since the issues involved are common in both the above appeals and the appeals were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX FFICER WARD- 3 (3), JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 8. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1.That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 2. That the CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,11,928/- u/s 36(1)(va) made under section

M/S AMAR COACH BUILDERS ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 8. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1.That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 2. That the CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,11,928/- u/s 36(1)(va) made under section

M/S KOSMO VEHICELS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 (3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

TILAK UTPADAN PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

SMT. GURINDER KAUR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

TILAK UTPADAN PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

SOFTOBIZ TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the assesses and written submission explained that admittedly the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. It was argued

SAVITRI WOOD PRODUCTS ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the assesses and written submission explained that admittedly the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. It was argued

SHRI PARMINDER SINGH PROP PHAGWARA GAS SERVICE ,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3, PHAGWARA

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the assesses and written submission explained that admittedly the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. It was argued

SATYAM CEMENTS,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the assesses and written submission explained that admittedly the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. It was argued

SHRI ADARSH TICKOO,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the assesses and written submission explained that admittedly the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. It was argued

M/S AMBEY CONSTRUTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 43B. 6. That thè appellant craves leave to add or amend thè grounds of appeal before thè appeal is finally heard or disposed of.” Brief Facts 1. In the present case the income of the assessee was assessed by the assessing officer to the tune of rupees 42, 22, 943 /-as the returned income (-) Rs 784,00,879/-. While

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

delay of 53 days is condoned. I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 The revenue has taken the following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,59,123/-made by the A.O on a/c of payments for provident fund dues^ beyond due date as provided u/s 36(l)(va). As the payments related to employees contribution

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

delay of 53 days is condoned. I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 The revenue has taken the following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,59,123/-made by the A.O on a/c of payments for provident fund dues^ beyond due date as provided u/s 36(l)(va). As the payments related to employees contribution

KHYBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

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

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

43B or u/s 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I.T.A. No.31/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2018-19 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 83,21,928/- relying on the amendment made to section 36(1) (va) by Finance Act, 2021 holding the same to be clarificatory ignoring