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

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

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/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

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’s favour, inter-alia, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab &Haryana

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

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’s favour, inter-alia, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab &Haryana

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

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/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

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

5 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022), [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). In this decision, it was noted by Hon’ble Court that there was divergent of opinion amongst various Hon’ble High Courts viz. High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi favoring the interpretation beneficial to the assessee on one hand

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

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

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

5 Assessment Year: 2017-18 above set back of contribution the AO shall afford the opportunity to the assessee and also permit him to support the contention on the basis of the documents/ evidence may be advised. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 5.1 The ld. AR further argued that as per the direction

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

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

5) of section 11, after the expiry of one year from the end of the ITA 596/Amr/2016 11 previous year in which such asset is acquired or the 31st day of March, 1992, whichever is later:] Provided also that nothing contained in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) 79[or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via)] shall apply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. MEASAGE BHAGWATI LACTO VEGETARIAN EXPORTS (P) LIMITED, FEROZEPUR CANTT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation was claimed at the rates provided in the Companies Law at Rs. 1,17,10,417/-, whereas in the computation of total income, the same was calculated at Rs. 3,55,17,746/- and it was also stated that the assessee has claimed bad debts amounting to Rs. 1,98,63,037/- being debts due from M/s Royal Wings

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

5 to the following effect was incorrect: - “Thus, in the absence of any explanation regarding the nature and source of the excess cash, investment in building and excess stock found, the same cannot be assessed as business income, rather it is squarely covered under the provisions of section 69/69A as unexplained income/investment not eligible for any deduction

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

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

5,28,924/- was made on account of depreciation claimed on trucks in excess of 15% as the assessee has claimed depreciation at the rate of 40% but the ld. AO restricted the claim to 15%. 3.4. The appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), Bathinda by challenging the assessment order. The part relief was allowed and only

UNIVERSAL BIOMASS ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUHARSAHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

depreciation), and the same was I.T.A. No. 267/Asr/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2018-19 processed u/s 143(1) on 20th February, 2020, by CPC, Bangalore, by disallowing the claim u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of Rs.5,61,39,920/-, (in absence of any audit report in form 10CCB on record). 3.1 In between, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

depreciation on plant & machinery and investment in UTI funds, by ignoring the facts of the case and submissions of assessee and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in partly confirming the action

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

depreciation on plant & machinery and investment in UTI funds, by ignoring the facts of the case and submissions of assessee and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in partly confirming the action

MEASAGE.G H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

depreciation on plant & machinery and investment in UTI funds, by ignoring the facts of the case and submissions of assessee and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in partly confirming the action