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)

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,CIT vs Mark Auto Industries Ltd ITA no 57 of I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 12 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 2009, 358 ITR 43. However, the position has materially been altered after

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

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,CIT vs Mark Auto Industries Ltd ITA no 57 of 2009, 358 ITR 43. However, the position has materially been altered after recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in bunch

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

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,CIT vs Mark Auto Industries Ltd ITA no 57 of 2009, 358 ITR 43. However, the position has materially been altered after recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in bunch

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

24)(x). Till now, this issue was being decided by us in assessee’s favour, inter-alia, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana,CIT vs Mark Auto Industries Ltd ITA no 57 of 2009, 358 ITR 43. However, the position has materially been altered after recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

24)(x). Till now, this issue was being decided by us in assessee’s favour, inter-alia, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab &Haryana,CIT vs Mark Auto Industries Ltd ITA no 57 of 2009, 358 ITR 43. However, the position has materially been altered after recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

24)(x). Till now, this issue was being decided by us in assessee’s favour, inter-alia, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab &Haryana,CIT vs Mark Auto Industries Ltd ITA no 57 of 2009, 358 ITR 43. However, the position has materially been altered after recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

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,CIT vs Mark Auto Industries Ltd ITA no 57 of 2009, 358 ITR 43. However, the position has materially been altered after recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in bunch

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

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

depreciation against the same. Issue No.2 : non-examination by the AO of the expenses claimed by the assessee 25. Taking up the next issue raised by the Ld. Pr.CIT, the same relates to non-examination by the AO of the claim of expenses by the assessee particularly, as per the Ld.Pr.CIT, in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee

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

2(24)(x), the occasion to travel to sec. 43B would not arise unless the sum under reference, i.e., the employee’s contribution, is deductible under the relevant provision/s, s.36(1)(va) in the present case. Section 36(1)(va) providing for the time limit for payment as prescribed under the relevant Act, which is not made, so that

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

2(24)(x), the occasion to travel to sec. 43B would not arise unless the sum under reference, i.e., the employee’s contribution, is deductible under the relevant provision/s, s.36(1)(va) in the present case. Section 36(1)(va) providing for the time limit for payment as prescribed under the relevant Act, which is not made, so that

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

2(24)(x), the occasion to travel to sec. 43B would not arise unless the sum under reference, i.e., the employee’s contribution, is deductible under the relevant provision/s, s.36(1)(va) in the present case. Section 36(1)(va) providing for the time limit for payment as prescribed under the relevant Act, which is not made, so that

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

2(24)(x), the occasion to travel to sec. 43B would not arise unless the sum under reference, i.e., the employee’s contribution, is deductible under the relevant provision/s, s.36(1)(va) in the present case. Section 36(1)(va) providing for the time limit for payment as prescribed under the relevant Act, which is not made, so that

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

depreciation claimed is as per recasted financial statement of which no cognizance has been taken in this order. This ground of appeal is thus rejected.” 47. In absence of any detail furnished before us, during the course of hearing by the assessee and in absence of any submission of the assessee in respect of this issue, we do not find

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

depreciation claimed is as per recasted financial statement of which no cognizance has been taken in this order. This ground of appeal is thus rejected.” 47. In absence of any detail furnished before us, during the course of hearing by the assessee and in absence of any submission of the assessee in respect of this issue, we do not find

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

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

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

x Yes society has made applicable Right to Education Act in the school. We are enclosing copies of information submitted to District Education Officer Amritsar and its consent letter. xi The society is not running any college. Fee Structure of the school is attached. xii The name of the school is step by step High School

SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.300/Asr/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Mandeep Singh Dhillon Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax #16310, Street No. 13/5 Dhillon Bathinda (Punjab). Colony, Barnala Bye Pass, Bathinda.

2,48,700/- and claimed loss of Rs. 8,36,533/-. The detail of sales or opening stock and also explanation about loss of Rs. 8,36,533/- have not been examined. (ii) In the case of husk account, the opening stock has been disclosed at Rs. 14,50,000/- and sales of Rs. 13,77,429/- and loss