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 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

depreciation and interest charges debited in the accounts never been considered by the Assessing Officer. It is undisputed fact that the working in the state of J&K is not congenial and all the time depends upon the natural calamities as well as terrorist activities, hence in the aforesaid circumstances, in our considered opinion the estimation of net profit rate

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

depreciation and interest charges debited in the accounts never been considered by the Assessing Officer. It is undisputed fact that the working in the state of J&K is not congenial and all the time depends upon the natural calamities as well as terrorist activities, hence in the aforesaid circumstances, in our considered opinion the estimation of net profit rate

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)

30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business and Profession". Likewise, section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed

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)

30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business and Profession". Likewise, section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed

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)

30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business and Profession". Likewise, section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed

SH.SHREE GURU NANAK DEV QUIN-CENTENARY CELEBRATION COMMITTEE,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Asr/2019 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shree Guru Nanak Dev Vs. Ito(Exemptions) Ward, Quin-Centenary Celebrations Jalandhar Committee, Guru Nanak Bhawan, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aawfs 2431 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (" यथ" / Respondent) : Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate िनधा"!रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By : Shri M.P.Singh, Cit-Dr राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सुनवाई क" तार'ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार'ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Ludhiana, Dated 08.02.2019, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Erroneous & Perverse & Thus Needs To Be Quashed. 2. That The Issuance Of Notice U/S 147/148 Is Bad In Law As No New Material Was There With The Ao To Initiate Action U/S 147 & The Proceedings In Furtherance Of Illegal Notice Are Void Ab-Initio & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Addition Made By Ao & Partially Confirmed By Cit (A) Is Devoid Of Proper Appreciation Of Facts On Record & Against Express Provisions Of Law & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Disposal Of The Present Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.06.2010 Declaring Total Income After Claiming Exemption

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening

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 and the addition of Rs. 7431428/- is hereby deleted.” 9.2. We heard the rival submission and thoughtfully considered the order of ITAT benches. The ld. CIT(A) had discussed the issue & delivered a speaking order. The issue is well settled. We are not interfering in the issue. Ld. CIT-DR did not bring any contrary fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR 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 and the addition of Rs. 7431428/- is hereby deleted.” 9.2. We heard the rival submission and thoughtfully considered the order of ITAT benches. The ld. CIT(A) had discussed the issue & delivered a speaking order. The issue is well settled. We are not interfering in the issue. Ld. CIT-DR did not bring any contrary fact

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 and the addition of Rs. 7431428/- is hereby deleted.” 9.2. We heard the rival submission and thoughtfully considered the order of ITAT benches. The ld. CIT(A) had discussed the issue & delivered a speaking order. The issue is well settled. We are not interfering in the issue. Ld. CIT-DR did not bring any contrary fact

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 and the addition of Rs. 7431428/- is hereby deleted.” 9.2. We heard the rival submission and thoughtfully considered the order of ITAT benches. The ld. CIT(A) had discussed the issue & delivered a speaking order. The issue is well settled. We are not interfering in the issue. Ld. CIT-DR did not bring any contrary fact

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 and the addition of Rs. 7431428/- is hereby deleted.” 9.2. We heard the rival submission and thoughtfully considered the order of ITAT benches. The ld. CIT(A) had discussed the issue & delivered a speaking order. The issue is well settled. We are not interfering in the issue. Ld. CIT-DR did not bring any contrary fact

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

In the result, the ground No

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

depreciation on wooden partition and the addition of Rs. 7431428/- is hereby deleted.” 9.2. We heard the rival submission and thoughtfully considered the order of ITAT benches. The ld. CIT(A) had discussed the issue & delivered a speaking order. The issue is well settled. We are not interfering in the issue. Ld. CIT-DR did not bring any contrary fact

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 and the addition of Rs. 7431428/- is hereby deleted.” 9.2. We heard the rival submission and thoughtfully considered the order of ITAT benches. The ld. CIT(A) had discussed the issue & delivered a speaking order. The issue is well settled. We are not interfering in the issue. Ld. CIT-DR did not bring any contrary fact

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued

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 on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the issue before the bench by a cross appeal. Being aggrieved on the order of the appellate authorityboth the parties has challenged the appeal order before us. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued