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

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

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 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,, 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 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,, 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 INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

133 (6) of the Act that the assessee has made payments in cash in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act by issuing bearer cheques. The appellant, on the other hand, has given detailed explanations against each party and admitted to have issued bearer cheques in some cases due to business expediency but claimed to have been duly reflected

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)

depreciation in respect of 42,000 bottles out of the total number of bottles (5,46,000), by reason of the impugned judgment. That benefit is sought to be taken away by the Department, which is not permissible in law. This is the infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court and the Tribunal.” d. The elementary principle found

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) had stated that the said amount of rs.12866154 pertain to claims received form Apex Marketing on account of damaged goods returned to them in earlier years. It has further stated that they neither gave the assessee claims in the shape of goods or by making payments of the said amount nor did it acknowledge the said claim which

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

133(6) was sought from the bank with regard to the interest rates obtaining during the relevant period, and which informed the same to be at 4.5% p.a., (for deposits with maturity from 15 days to 45 days) and at 9.5% p.a., (with maturity period ranging from 46 days to 1 year). He, accordingly, applied an average rate

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

133(6) was sought from the bank with regard to the interest rates obtaining during the relevant period, and which informed the same to be at 4.5% p.a., (for deposits with maturity from 15 days to 45 days) and at 9.5% p.a., (with maturity period ranging from 46 days to 1 year). He, accordingly, applied an average rate

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

133(6) was sought from the bank with regard to the interest rates obtaining during the relevant period, and which informed the same to be at 4.5% p.a., (for deposits with maturity from 15 days to 45 days) and at 9.5% p.a., (with maturity period ranging from 46 days to 1 year). He, accordingly, applied an average rate

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

133(6) was sought from the bank with regard to the interest rates obtaining during the relevant period, and which informed the same to be at 4.5% p.a., (for deposits with maturity from 15 days to 45 days) and at 9.5% p.a., (with maturity period ranging from 46 days to 1 year). He, accordingly, applied an average rate

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

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

depreciation 8507221 27513457 8. The assessing Officer after considering replies filed by the assesse from time to time and test checking of books of accounts produced before the Assessing Officer, an assessment was framed at an Income of Rs. 99,68,100/- by making an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of expenses debited to Profit and loss account