ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

set-off of brought forward business losses ( other than speculative losses ) amounting to Rs.1.25 crore u/s 72, and unabsorbed depreciation

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.

set off. The loss and as to how the same is allowable as deduction have not been examined. (viii) From the facts noted above, it is clear that assessee is not doing business activity but the cash balance on 31.03.2014 has been shown at Rs. 65,65,625/- which is more than the double of the so called sales disclosed

M/S SHARP CHUKS AND MACHINES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms as above

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

set off business losses suffered by the assessee out of the surrendered income except the element of cash surrendered. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. No.-1. T. A. No. 1080 /Chd/ 2014 (assessment year 2011-12). 5. Per Contra, the learned DR stands by the impugned order. 6. Heard both the sides, perused the material on record, impugned order

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

loss or 7 the 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

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

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

setting off brought forward unabsorbed business loss and depreciation at Rs.5,52,861. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on 29/1/2015

SH. KARAMJIT SINGH RAI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this act has been computed." 9. The law on the provisions of section 147 is very clear. Section 147 authorizes the Assessing Officer to assess or re-assess the income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that the income for any assessment order has escaped assessment

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

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.4,32,80,900/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Act Keeping in the view the above

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

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.4,32,80,900/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Act Keeping in the view the above

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

set out in the show cause notice issued to the assessee are as under: (a) Allowability of depreciation and other expenses as business expenditure and their purpose for earning revenue from operations and other income; b) Basis of computation of loss

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

Loss account, 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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 298/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan: Aaact6167G Dy. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. The Jammu & Kashmir Circle-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bank Ltd., Corporate Head Bhawan, Railhead Complex, Quarters, M. A. Road, Jammu. Srinagar. (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation should he allowed instead of 100% claimed. Accordingly, he prayed to reverse the order of the Id. CIT(A) and confirm the order of the Assessing Officer. 11.3. Mr. R.K.Gupta, CA, relied upOn the submissions made before the Id. CIT(A) and the order of the Id. CIT(A). He further argued that the identical issue has come

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

loss or the 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

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

loss or the 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): Provided ………. Provided further……… Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income other than the income involving matters which

GMG HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

depreciation was charged to the profit and loss account; and (ii) that, the liability outstanding towards the aforementioned party though disputed had however not ceased. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, we find that they had summarily brushed aside the aforesaid claim of the assessee, and without looking into the fact situation pertaining to the outstanding

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

losses. It will be further seen that subsidy so provided is only to promote setting up of the cold storages and is not a reimbursement or agreement to meet the cost of the asset acquired I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 48 by the appellant company. This fact would be evident from clause (iv) of the Scheme which provides that assessee would

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

losses. It will be further seen that subsidy so provided is only to promote setting up of the cold storages and is not a reimbursement or agreement to meet the cost of the asset acquired I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 48 by the appellant company. This fact would be evident from clause (iv) of the Scheme which provides that assessee would

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

losses. It will be further seen that subsidy so provided is only to promote setting up of the cold storages and is not a reimbursement or agreement to meet the cost of the asset acquired I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 48 by the appellant company. This fact would be evident from clause (iv) of the Scheme which provides that assessee would