THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65

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 of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65

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

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

65,933/- and added back as undisclosed business income to the returned income.” Since, the assessing officer has applied his mind and treated the undisclosed amount in bank account as undisclosed business ITA 260/Amr/2019 25 receipt or turnover of the assessee, therefore provisions of section 115BBE does not apply to the assessee. 16. Even, ld PCIT while exercising his jurisdiction

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

65,67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also

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

65,67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also

THE OXFORD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY,FARIDKOT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 583/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: N/A M/S The Oxford Educational & Vs. Cit(E), Charitable Society (Oxbridge Chandigarh. World School, Kotkapura) Hira Singh Nagar, Kotkapura, Faridkot (Punjab) [Pan: Aabtt6670Q] (Appellant) (Respendent)

section 13(l)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 8. The quantitative extract of Gross receipt, Net Surplus and addition made to Van, Bus etc. for F.Y. 2012-13 to F.Y. 2014-15 is as under, as revealed by the financial statement submitted by the applicant:- 11 I.T.A. No. 583/Asr/2016 F.Y. Gross receipt Net Surplus plus Depreciation Addition

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

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

65[(a) applies its income, or accumulates it for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established and in a case where more than fifteen per cent of its income is accumulated on or after the 1st day of April, 2002, the period of the accumulation of the amount exceeding fifteen per cent of its income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IV,, PATHANKOT vs. THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO. OPBANK LTD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenaandsh. Anikesh Banerjee

65,100/- and Rs.57,135/- related to purchase of floor tiles are nature of capital expenditure. So, it is not the revenue expenditure & cannot be the part of the P & L a/c. It is to be directed that the depreciation of the capital expenditure should be allowed to the assessee in applicable rate. In relation to payment

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

65) by way of issuing a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The counsel has argued that based on audit objection, vide audit memo CHD/IT/001/2017-18 dated 24.01.2018 proceedings u/s 154 of the Act were initiated, by way of notice dated 08.06.2018 on the issue of machinery repairs and maintenance of building, repairs and maintenance and interest paid which were

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

65 lakhs, over and above the normal business profits), has been assessed (accepted) in scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961, after examination of regular books of accounts supported by relevant bills and vouchers, but the surrender amount of Rs.65 lakhs , has been treated as deemed income u/s 69 A of the Act, 1961, and subjected

MESERS SHRI SWAMI SHANKARNATH PARVAT CHARITABLE AND WELFARE TRUST ,KAPURTHALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

65. The J-Forms for next year are at Pages 66 to 69. The J- Form dated 18/11/2017 is for Rs. 98,218/- and not Rs. 1,98,218/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh has also observed that J- Forms numbers are not as per dates. It is submitted that J-Forms are issued out of Books

M/S NARULA FOODS 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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue