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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly

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

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

16 21. He argued that explanation 2 in section 263 is not applicable retrospectively. He relied upon the decisions in SATISH KUMAR VS PR CIT ITA NO. 258/ASR/2019, A.V. Industries vs. ACIT ITA No.3469/M/2010 and Metacaps Engineering &Mahendra Construction Co. vs. CIT I.T.A. No. 2895/Mum/2014. 22. That the Ld. AR had further submitted that amendment to section 115BBE

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

16 A.Y.2015-16 assessee and depreciation claimed against the same, rests on the understanding that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates Vs. ACIT (supra) applied to the facts of the present case and the rental income accordingly was assessable under the head “Income from House Property” against which no claim

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVTE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue