ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal

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

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 298/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan: Aaact6167G Dy. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. The Jammu & Kashmir Circle-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bank Ltd., Corporate Head Bhawan, Railhead Complex, Quarters, M. A. Road, Jammu. Srinagar. (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation should he allowed instead of 100% claimed. Accordingly, he prayed to reverse the order of the Id. CIT(A) and confirm the order of the Assessing Officer. 11.3. Mr. R.K.Gupta, CA, relied upOn the submissions made before the Id. CIT(A) and the order of the Id. CIT(A). He further argued that the identical issue has come

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

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

depreciation on car which was used for director’s personal expenses. Aggrieved assesseefled an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) the ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition related to disallowance of expenses on estimated basis. In appeal the disallowances are reduced to 1/10th of total expenses. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

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

depreciation on car which was used for director’s personal expenses. Aggrieved assesseefled an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) the ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition related to disallowance of expenses on estimated basis. In appeal the disallowances are reduced to 1/10th of total expenses. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly

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 ITA 260/Amr/2019 32 From the above chart, your goodself will observe that income declared by the assessee is much more as compared to previous year, keeping in view amount surrendered at Rs. 1,50,00,000/- during the year under consideration.” 39. Further, the assessee in rectification proceeding under section 154 had submitted the manner in which the amount

INCOME TAX OFFICEER, WARD - 2(2),, JAMMU vs. M/S NIKHIL INFRA - TECH LTD., DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 373/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 144 by the AO. This is as it is his best judgment assessment, and not of anyone else, even as clarified by the Hon'ble Court in CIT vs. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (Mad). The purview of an appellate authority, as further explained by it, is only to reappraise the evidence relied upon

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

194 (SC)), we find no basis for the said addition in the facts and circumstances of the case. True, the burden of proof u/s. 68 is on the assessee, which has not furnished any material in the assessment proceedings. However, it is not clear if the AO had in any of the notices u/s. 142(1) required the assessee

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

194 (SC)), we find no basis for the said addition in the facts and circumstances of the case. True, the burden of proof u/s. 68 is on the assessee, which has not furnished any material in the assessment proceedings. However, it is not clear if the AO had in any of the notices u/s. 142(1) required the assessee

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

section,—' 4.2 It is clear, therefore, that the cost incurred by the assessee, deduction for which in computing capital gains, short-term or long-term, could be allowed, other than where incurred in connection with the transfer, is that incurred on the acquisition or improvement of the capital asset transferred, i.e., capital costs. Whether a particular cost qualifies