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

depreciation considering the nature of assets. The issue was already covered by the order of assessee’s own case in ITAT-Amritsar Bench, ITA No-415/Asr/2009 date of pronouncement 27/06/2012 in paragraph no 22. We relied on the order of coordinate bench &upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 38 15.1. In the result

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

depreciation considering the nature of assets. The issue was already covered by the order of assessee’s own case in ITAT-Amritsar Bench, ITA No-415/Asr/2009 date of pronouncement 27/06/2012 in paragraph no 22. We relied on the order of coordinate bench &upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 38 15.1. In the result

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

depreciation considering the nature of assets. The issue was already covered by the order of assessee’s own case in ITAT-Amritsar Bench, ITA No-415/Asr/2009 date of pronouncement 27/06/2012 in paragraph no 22. We relied on the order of coordinate bench &upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 38 15.1. In the result

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

depreciation considering the nature of assets. The issue was already covered by the order of assessee’s own case in ITAT-Amritsar Bench, ITA No-415/Asr/2009 date of pronouncement 27/06/2012 in paragraph no 22. We relied on the order of coordinate bench &upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 38 15.1. In the result

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

depreciation considering the nature of assets. The issue was already covered by the order of assessee’s own case in ITAT-Amritsar Bench, ITA No-415/Asr/2009 date of pronouncement 27/06/2012 in paragraph no 22. We relied on the order of coordinate bench &upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 38 15.1. In the result

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

depreciation considering the nature of assets. The issue was already covered by the order of assessee’s own case in ITAT-Amritsar Bench, ITA No-415/Asr/2009 date of pronouncement 27/06/2012 in paragraph no 22. We relied on the order of coordinate bench &upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 38 15.1. In the result

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

depreciation considering the nature of assets. The issue was already covered by the order of assessee’s own case in ITAT-Amritsar Bench, ITA No-415/Asr/2009 date of pronouncement 27/06/2012 in paragraph no 22. We relied on the order of coordinate bench &upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 38 15.1. In the result

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

depreciation considering the nature of assets. The issue was already covered by the order of assessee’s own case in ITAT-Amritsar Bench, ITA No-415/Asr/2009 date of pronouncement 27/06/2012 in paragraph no 22. We relied on the order of coordinate bench &upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 38 15.1. In the result

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

depreciation considering the nature of assets. The issue was already covered by the order of assessee’s own case in ITAT-Amritsar Bench, ITA No-415/Asr/2009 date of pronouncement 27/06/2012 in paragraph no 22. We relied on the order of coordinate bench &upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 38 15.1. In the result

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

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

38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits

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

38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits

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

38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments I.T.A. Nos.261&253/Asr/2022 6 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what

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

38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments I.T.A. Nos.261&253/Asr/2022 6 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 (1) , JALANDHAR

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

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

38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

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

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

38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits

M. K HOTEL & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too starts with a non-obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits