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

section 43(1), would suggest that actual receipt of subsidy was a condition precedent forinvoking such provisions - Held, yes - Whether where amount of subsidy had actually been received by assessee in next financial year, actual cost of plant and machinery could not be reduced during year under appeal thereby reducing claim of depreciation - Held, yes - Whether, however, Assessing Officer

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

section 43(1), would suggest that actual receipt of subsidy was a condition precedent forinvoking such provisions - Held, yes - Whether where amount of subsidy had actually been received by assessee in next financial year, actual cost of plant and machinery could not be reduced during year under appeal thereby reducing claim of depreciation - Held, yes - Whether, however, Assessing Officer

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

section 43(1), would suggest that actual receipt of subsidy was a condition precedent forinvoking such provisions - Held, yes - Whether where amount of subsidy had actually been received by assessee in next financial year, actual cost of plant and machinery could not be reduced during year under appeal thereby reducing claim of depreciation - Held, yes - Whether, however, Assessing Officer

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

section 43(1), would suggest that actual receipt of subsidy was a condition precedent forinvoking such provisions - Held, yes - Whether where amount of subsidy had actually been received by assessee in next financial year, actual cost of plant and machinery could not be reduced during year under appeal thereby reducing claim of depreciation - Held, yes - Whether, however, Assessing Officer

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

section 43(1), would suggest that actual receipt of subsidy was a condition precedent forinvoking such provisions - Held, yes - Whether where amount of subsidy had actually been received by assessee in next financial year, actual cost of plant and machinery could not be reduced during year under appeal thereby reducing claim of depreciation - Held, yes - Whether, however, Assessing Officer

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

section 43(1), would suggest that actual receipt of subsidy was a condition precedent forinvoking such provisions - Held, yes - Whether where amount of subsidy had actually been received by assessee in next financial year, actual cost of plant and machinery could not be reduced during year under appeal thereby reducing claim of depreciation - Held, yes - Whether, however, Assessing Officer

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

section 43(1), would suggest that actual receipt of subsidy was a condition precedent forinvoking such provisions - Held, yes - Whether where amount of subsidy had actually been received by assessee in next financial year, actual cost of plant and machinery could not be reduced during year under appeal thereby reducing claim of depreciation - Held, yes - Whether, however, Assessing Officer

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

section 43(1), would suggest that actual receipt of subsidy was a condition precedent forinvoking such provisions - Held, yes - Whether where amount of subsidy had actually been received by assessee in next financial year, actual cost of plant and machinery could not be reduced during year under appeal thereby reducing claim of depreciation - Held, yes - Whether, however, Assessing Officer

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

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.]” 10. Interpreting section 263(1), the proposition that to invoke revisionary jurisdiction, the assessing officers order must be found

SMT. HARVINDER KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I,, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 328/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation (on fixed assets) stands claimed, the interest would, as per proviso to section 36(1)(iii), require being capitalized. The assessee has completely failed to come out, much less exhibit, the bare, basic facts of the case, which is unfortunate, much less rebut the clear findings by the Revenue authorities in the matter or show any infirmity therein

SMT. AMITA NARANG,DELHI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 385/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

119 ITR 372 (AP). The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Sh. Charan Dass, would rely on CIT v. Vardhman Polytex Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 186 (P&H), rendered following CIT v. Vardhman Polytex Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 152 (P&H)(FB). 4. I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Section 48, which provides the manner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. MEASAGE BHAGWATI LACTO VEGETARIAN EXPORTS (P) LIMITED, FEROZEPUR CANTT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the record of the appellant- company filed return of income declaring net income of Rs.11,95,70,120/- on 31.03.2017. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that as per the audited profit and loss account, the assessee had earned

SHRI RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

119-B, Punjab Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Avenue, Ladhewali, Jalandhar. Income Tax, Central [PAN: AAFPT4090C] Circle-II, Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. Nos. 111 & 113/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs. Rajan Batra, 46-Chotti Tax, Central Circle-I, Baradari Part-1, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AEVPB4152K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA. Respondent

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI RAJAN BATRA, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

119-B, Punjab Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Avenue, Ladhewali, Jalandhar. Income Tax, Central [PAN: AAFPT4090C] Circle-II, Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. Nos. 111 & 113/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs. Rajan Batra, 46-Chotti Tax, Central Circle-I, Baradari Part-1, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AEVPB4152K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA. Respondent

SHRI RJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

119-B, Punjab Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Avenue, Ladhewali, Jalandhar. Income Tax, Central [PAN: AAFPT4090C] Circle-II, Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. Nos. 111 & 113/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs. Rajan Batra, 46-Chotti Tax, Central Circle-I, Baradari Part-1, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AEVPB4152K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA. Respondent

SHRI RAJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

119-B, Punjab Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Avenue, Ladhewali, Jalandhar. Income Tax, Central [PAN: AAFPT4090C] Circle-II, Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. Nos. 111 & 113/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs. Rajan Batra, 46-Chotti Tax, Central Circle-I, Baradari Part-1, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AEVPB4152K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA. Respondent

SHRI RAJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

119-B, Punjab Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Avenue, Ladhewali, Jalandhar. Income Tax, Central [PAN: AAFPT4090C] Circle-II, Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. Nos. 111 & 113/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs. Rajan Batra, 46-Chotti Tax, Central Circle-I, Baradari Part-1, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AEVPB4152K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA. Respondent

SHRI RAJESH TIWARI,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

119-B, Punjab Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Avenue, Ladhewali, Jalandhar. Income Tax, Central [PAN: AAFPT4090C] Circle-II, Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. Nos. 111 & 113/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs. Rajan Batra, 46-Chotti Tax, Central Circle-I, Baradari Part-1, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AEVPB4152K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA. Respondent