SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

5:-Vide ground of appeal No.5, the assessee objects to the assumption of power by the worthy PCIT-1, Jalandhar on the pretext that as only photocopies of agreement to sell were filed. It is pertinently submitted here that the documents in original were never requisitioned by the PCIT while conducting enquiry in the matter concerned in proceedings under section

M/S. SURYA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayaftfrcf ^T./Ita No. 348/Asr/2023 / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Surya Automobiles Pvt The Dcit, <Shh Circle Ii, Ltd., Near Dav Campus, Bhatinda Hanumangarh Road, Abohar ^|41<^H./Pan No: Aafcs271 In Ul^^Ff/Respondent Appellant

17 A. Y. 2014-15 granted the following relief: Out of expenses and car depreciation 203281 interest in term of section 14(a) of the Act. 168397 Service tax incentive receipt. ” 17211 . 348-Asr-2023 Surya Automobiles Pvt Ltd., Abohar Aggrieved with the order of CIT (A) the appellant went in 5. appeal before Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench

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)

5. The grievance of the assessee is that confirmation of disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to PF / ESI in terms of Sec.43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) as well as Sec.2(24)(x). Till now, this issue was being decided by us in assessee’sfavour, inter-alia, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab &Haryana

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)

5. The grievance of the assessee is that confirmation of disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to PF / ESI in terms of Sec.43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) as well as Sec.2(24)(x). Till now, this issue was being decided by us in assessee’sfavour, inter-alia, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab &Haryana

KAY SWITCGEARS INDIA 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)

5. The grievance of the assessee is that confirmation of disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to PF / ESI in terms of Sec.43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) as well as Sec.2(24)(x). Till now, this issue was being decided by us in assessee’sfavour, inter-alia, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab &Haryana

ROYAL FURNISHER ,JAMMU vs. ASSESING OFFICER WARD- 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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

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 to be both erroneous

SHRI AMRIT PARKASH SEHGAL (HUF),JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

D. Sharma. 5. Under the similar circumstances, ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Sahabuddin Quadiri v. DCIT in ITA No. 1617/KOL/2016 condoned the delay of 409 days in filing appeal against order u/s 263 of the Act by observation as under: 5 Amrit Parkash Sehgal (HUF) v. ITO “We are of the considered opinion that assessee was under

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

17 Marlas was acquired by SDM 2009. The balance land of 11 Kanal and 16 Marlas had been shown “Ghair Mumkin and Karkhana” in crop year 2009-10 in the Garduri of Village Verka. The land 15 Kanal 13 Marlas comprise in Khasra no. 1034/3 was not put to use for agricultural purposes for the crop year

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

d. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing deduction u/s 80IB to the assessee when the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of claim of power expenses nor was able to substantiate its claim for purchase of Plant and Machinery as I.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 3 Assessment Year: 2013-14 number of discrepancies were noticed which have duly been

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent I.T.A. No.192/Asr/2022 8 Assessment Year: 2018-19 upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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

M/S BINDRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.190/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

D)/(A)*100 it is clear that the Assessee has taken Net Profit (After taking Interest Income) of Rs. 9,97,646.00 for Assessment Year 2016- 17 instead of Net Profit relating to Civil Contractor Business of Rs. 6,08,444.00 for the purpose of calculating Net Profit ratio which resulted Net Profit ratio of 3.06% in Assessment Year

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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

17 .03.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeals of the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] order dated 14.12.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20.The impugned order was emanated from I.T.A

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

17 .03.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeals of the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] order dated 14.12.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20.The impugned order was emanated from I.T.A