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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section 43(1) in unwarranted

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section 43(1) in unwarranted

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section 43(1) in unwarranted

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section 43(1) in unwarranted

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section 43(1) in unwarranted

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section 43(1) in unwarranted

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section 43(1) in unwarranted

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section 43(1) in unwarranted

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section 43(1) in unwarranted

M/S STEP BY STEP JUNIOR SCHOOL SOCIETY,AMRITSAR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this clause in the same or any other previous year;] 19. From the reading of Section 10(23C) (vi), it is amply clear that the university and educational institution that are solely for educational purposes and not for profit must

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

10,47,11,318/- as against claimed by the assessee in respect of expenditure of Rs 77,65,67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income

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

10,47,11,318/- as against claimed by the assessee in respect of expenditure of Rs 77,65,67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income

THE OXFORD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY,FARIDKOT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 583/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: N/A M/S The Oxford Educational & Vs. Cit(E), Charitable Society (Oxbridge Chandigarh. World School, Kotkapura) Hira Singh Nagar, Kotkapura, Faridkot (Punjab) [Pan: Aabtt6670Q] (Appellant) (Respendent)

depreciation claimed and additions made towards acquiring Van/ Buses etc. amounts to 54.18%, 89.62% and 56.68% of the Gross receipts for the F.Y. 2012-13, F.Y. 2013-14 and F.Y. 2014-15 respectively. Further, the additions made towards buildings during F.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 & F.Y. 2014-15 still remains as less as Rs. 2.2 lakhs

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

c. The word "thereon" restricts the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Tribunal to the subject-matter of the appeal. The Hon’ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to travel beyond the impugned Order specially on issues (Registration u/s 12AA) not disputed by the Ld. CIT in the impugned order. The Hon’ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to doubt Registration

NAVODIA TIMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent I.T.A. No.192/Asr/2022 8 Assessment Year: 2018-19 upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

M/S. RAMCO ENGG WORKS ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

SHRI SACHIN KAPUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable