SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

disallowing the claim of LTCG being exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal and in course of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has 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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

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

23, 16, 393/- and such disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

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

10. "Income" has been defined under section 2(24) of the Act to include profits and gains. Under Section 2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund/superannuation fund or any fund set up under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, or any other fund for the welfare of such employees

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)

10. "Income" has been defined under section 2(24) of the Act to include profits and gains. Under Section 2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund/superannuation fund or any fund set up under the I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 17 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Employees' State Insurance

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)

10. "Income" has been defined under section 2(24) of the Act to include profits and gains. Under Section 2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund/superannuation fund or any fund set up under the I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 17 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Employees' State Insurance

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)

10. "Income" has been defined under section 2(24) of the Act to include profits and gains. Under Section 2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund/superannuation fund or any fund set up under the I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 17 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Employees' State Insurance

M/S AMAR COACH BUILDERS ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently been

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX FFICER WARD- 3 (3), JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently been

SHRIMATI SNEH LATA, DARBAR FEED MILLS,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Furnishing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. When The Matter Was Taken To The Ld. Cit(A) The Said Disallowance Was Sustained.

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently been