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

section 263 be quashed, annulled and cancelled in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play. GOA:- 14:- Vide ground of appeal No.14, it is humbly prayed that in the event of any adversity arising out of the brief written submission besides judgement set, I.T.A. No. 425/Asr/2019 19 Assessment Year: 2014-15 assessee may kindly be afforded an effective opportunity

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 thereon. (f) Basis of valuation of unquoted current investment sold during the year to a sister concern. 4. It is the aforesaid order of the Ld. Pr.CIT which is in challenge before us and the grounds raised by the assessee challenge both the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction 4 A.Y.2015-16 by the Ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263

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

Section 263 it will be observed that the AO had already made due enquiries and verification of all those points on the basis of which the Pr.CIT has passed the order u/s 263. Hence the assessment order framed by AO after making all the requisite enquiries and verification and with full application of mind was neither erroneous nor prejudicial

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

263 of the Act shows that jurisdiction there under can be exercised if the CIT finds that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Mere audit objection and merely because a different view could be taken; were not enough to say that the order of the AO was erroneous or prejudicial

WALIA CONSTRUCATION COMPANY ,PATHANKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

depreciation of the assessee. The ld. PCIT by invoking the section 263 issued the notice and asked assessee for claiming

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.

depreciation was rightly claimed on building and machinery as trading was done during the relevant period. Cash Balance of Rs. 65,65,625/- was the opening cash and sales/business receipts during the year, cash deposits were out of sale proceeds during the year. A copy of account of commodity profit has also been furnished. It has further been stated that

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