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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without

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

10% was disallowed of total expenses amount to Rs. 1,12,63,866/- which is working out to Rs. 11,26,386/- on Travelling expenses in Foreign & Inland and Vehicle running and maintenance. The ld. AO had made ad hoc disallowance. 21.1. The ld. CIT-DR argued and relied on order of revenue authority. 21.2. The disallowance was made without

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

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

26 Assessment Year: 2018-19 be considered as falling either under clause (ii) or (iv) of section 143(1). For ready reference, we are extracting the relevant provision as under: '143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed

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

26 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 disallowance under sub-clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a), has used the expression 'indicated in the audit report'. The word 'indicated' is wider in amplitude than the word 'reported', which envelopes both the direct and indirect reporting. Even if there is some indication of disallowance in the audit report, which is short

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

26 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 disallowance under sub-clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a), has used the expression 'indicated in the audit report'. The word 'indicated' is wider in amplitude than the word 'reported', which envelopes both the direct and indirect reporting. Even if there is some indication of disallowance in the audit report, which is short

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to cases, therefore respectfully following the earlier orders as referred to herein above of the different Benches of the ITAT, the impugned