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

80 IB (11 A) of the Act, should be allowed. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in sustaining a disallowance of a claim of deduction of a sum of Rs. 91,014/- claimed under section 80IB of the Act for F&B division by the assessee - appellant. I.T.A. Nos.288

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. 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

80 IB (11 A) of the Act, should be allowed. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in sustaining a disallowance of a claim of deduction of a sum of Rs. 91,014/- claimed under section 80IB of the Act for F&B division by the assessee - appellant. I.T.A. Nos.288

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

80 IB (11 A) of the Act, should be allowed. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in sustaining a disallowance of a claim of deduction of a sum of Rs. 91,014/- claimed under section 80IB of the Act for F&B division by the assessee - appellant. I.T.A. Nos.288

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

80 IB (11 A) of the Act, should be allowed. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in sustaining a disallowance of a claim of deduction of a sum of Rs. 91,014/- claimed under section 80IB of the Act for F&B division by the assessee - appellant. I.T.A. Nos.288

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

80 IB (11 A) of the Act, should be allowed. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in sustaining a disallowance of a claim of deduction of a sum of Rs. 91,014/- claimed under section 80IB of the Act for F&B division by the assessee - appellant. I.T.A. Nos.288

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

80 IB (11 A) of the Act, should be allowed. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in sustaining a disallowance of a claim of deduction of a sum of Rs. 91,014/- claimed under section 80IB of the Act for F&B division by the assessee - appellant. I.T.A. Nos.288

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

80 IB (11 A) of the Act, should be allowed. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in sustaining a disallowance of a claim of deduction of a sum of Rs. 91,014/- claimed under section 80IB of the Act for F&B division by the assessee - appellant. I.T.A. Nos.288

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

80 IB (11 A) of the Act, should be allowed. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in sustaining a disallowance of a claim of deduction of a sum of Rs. 91,014/- claimed under section 80IB of the Act for F&B division by the assessee - appellant. I.T.A. Nos.288

SH. JASBIR SINGH S/O TEK CHAND,,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 600/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 143(3) read with sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30.11.2010 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08. 2. The appeal being time-barred, the first issue is if the delay could be condoned, and the appeal admitted. The delay is explained as on account of non- receipt of the appellate order

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

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

depreciation and increase in bank interest. The Assessing Officerafter considering this explanation had passed the assessment order, however, he did not mention the fact of considering this explanation in the assessment order. The only none mentioning of certain enquiries and explanations thereof. in the assessment order in itself does not give a right to Commissioner to pass order under section

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

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)

80-G(5)(vi) of the I.T. Act,1961.” 13 Copy of Order in the case of Chief Khalsa Diwan dated 24.04.2009 placed on record along filed Written Submissions in the Hon’ble Court on 29.07.2010. 5. Case Laws: In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. M/s DawoodiBoharaJamat

M/S GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BATHINDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 598/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: N.A.

depreciation stands provided on an accelerated (WDV) basis at the rates prescribed under the Act for determining business income, which inflates the charge for the initial years, as against being applied uniformly over the life of the asset. Before us, the ld. counsel sought to justify the fees which, on an annual basis, ranges from

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

80,881/- u/s. 194LA of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee claimed exemption u/s. `10(37) in the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) during the filing his return. During the assessment proceedings the ld. AO made verification and called the revenue record. Sh. Jagjit Singh Patwari of Verka Village was called along with “Khasra Garduari” (generally done twice a year, Winter/Rabi

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

section, or re-compute the loss or the 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

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

section, or re-compute the loss or the 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

SH. PRATAP SINGH SAMRA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned” From the plain reading of the section 147 it is clear that the AO was well within the powers to assess the cash deposits deposited in the bank of Baroda. The Appellant has submitted an agreement to sell as additional evidence at the time

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

80,754/- instead of Rs. 12,88,06,654/- u/s 14A(3) read with Rule 8D of the Act. The appellant craves to amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. The grounds in ITA No. 329/Asr/2018 of the assessee is as follows: “1) That the Ld. CIT(A) Jammu has confirmed the action