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

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

13 educational institution referred to in sub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (via), has been approved by the prescribed authority, and the notification or the approval is in force for any previous year, then, nothing contained in any other provision of this section [other than clause (1) thereof] shall operate

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

MESERS SHRI SWAMI SHANKARNATH PARVAT CHARITABLE AND WELFARE TRUST ,KAPURTHALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

13,87,000/- (sic Rs. 14 lac) is the amount received by the assessee society as a ‘security deposit’ from its tenants, therefore, no feasible comparison between the rent received by the assessee society and the said security deposit can be drawn. Be that as it may, in our considered view the quantum of rent received by the assessee society

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned. 7 In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that income to the tune of Rs.4,32,80,900/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Act Keeping in the view the above facts 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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned. 7 In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that income to the tune of Rs.4,32,80,900/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Act Keeping in the view the above facts income

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)

Section 254(1) of the 1961 Act), the Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the Assessee by the AO. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the present case, we are of the view that, in this case, the AO had granted depreciation in respect

SH.SHREE GURU NANAK DEV QUIN-CENTENARY CELEBRATION COMMITTEE,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Asr/2019 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shree Guru Nanak Dev Vs. Ito(Exemptions) Ward, Quin-Centenary Celebrations Jalandhar Committee, Guru Nanak Bhawan, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aawfs 2431 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (" यथ" / Respondent) : Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate िनधा"!रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By : Shri M.P.Singh, Cit-Dr राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सुनवाई क" तार'ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार'ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Ludhiana, Dated 08.02.2019, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Erroneous & Perverse & Thus Needs To Be Quashed. 2. That The Issuance Of Notice U/S 147/148 Is Bad In Law As No New Material Was There With The Ao To Initiate Action U/S 147 & The Proceedings In Furtherance Of Illegal Notice Are Void Ab-Initio & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Addition Made By Ao & Partially Confirmed By Cit (A) Is Devoid Of Proper Appreciation Of Facts On Record & Against Express Provisions Of Law & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Disposal Of The Present Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.06.2010 Declaring Total Income After Claiming Exemption

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 32 depreciation is admissible on plant and machinery which are actually used and the words 'actual use' have been held by the Courts and Tribunals to be wide enough to cover intended use including passive use even though it may not be actually used as may seen from the following decisions: 10 Kanav Khanna v. Asstt

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

13 covered under the provisions of section 69/69A as unexplained income/investment not eligible for any deduction and to be charged to tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. In view of the foregoing reasons, it is apparent that while framing assessment, the Assessing Officer failed to hold the surrendered income as unexplained investment/unexplained money u/s 69/69A