MESERS P.D SEKHSARIA TRADING COMPANY ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

6,105 to 124]" There was no mention or proposal to amend section 43(5)(e) in CTT Act 2013 which was only inserted in August 2014 vide F A (No.2) 2014. 39. The specific amendment w.r.t. chargeability of CTT was brought in the Act only in FA (No. 2) in August 2014, but all such transactions of assessee were

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD II(4), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

6 ITA No. 119/Asr./2018 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal this case, when the accounts of the assessee were declared NPA, and no interest was debited to its loan account by the Bank, the amount had not become payable, though it had accrued as an expense under the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, the term 'any sum payable' used in section

SH. VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL, PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

6 ITA No. 119/Asr./2018 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal this case, when the accounts of the assessee were declared NPA, and no interest was debited to its loan account by the Bank, the amount had not become payable, though it had accrued as an expense under the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, the term 'any sum payable' used in section

SH. ANUP KUMAR JAITLY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under subsection (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

vii) addition of unexplained investment amount to Rs. 11,37,300/- and Rs. 5,56,800/- out of depreciation allowance and viii) disallowance U/s 40A(3) amount to Rs. 8,38,000/-.Being aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved revenue filed an appeal before

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

vii) of the Act. ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 5 1. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the income tax Act, 1961 was undertaken at the residential/business premises of the assessee on 8.9.2016. in this case order u/s 127(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) was passed and the case issued

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

vii) of the Act. ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 5 1. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the income tax Act, 1961 was undertaken at the residential/business premises of the assessee on 8.9.2016. in this case order u/s 127(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) was passed and the case issued

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

vii) of the Act. ITA 728-731/Amr/2019 5 1. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the income tax Act, 1961 was undertaken at the residential/business premises of the assessee on 8.9.2016. in this case order u/s 127(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) was passed and the case issued

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COPREATIVE -BANK,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee has not pressed, ground no-3 is

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

disallowance as made by the AO, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is not eligible in deduction of the second limb of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act which concerns itself with deduction computed @ 10% of aggregate average advance made rural branches of the assessee. To keeping in view, amended provision to section 36(1)(vii

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. THE NAWANSHAHR CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, NAWANSHAHR

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 61/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Aaaat4125G The Dy. C. I. T. Vs. The Nawanshahr Central Co-Op. Circle-Ii, Jalandhar. Bank Ltd. Nawanshahr, Distt. Doaba. (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the provisions which the assessee has made on standard assets and has also made addition on account of interest on Non Performing Assets which the assessee had not taken into account. We find that these issues are 3 ITA No. 61(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the orders

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -IV, KAPURTHALA vs. M/S PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK, KAPURTHALA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

10. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue pertaining to the disallowance of the provisions for leave encashment and addition of the interest accrued on the previous investments made by the A.O, which thereafter had been vacated by the CIT(A). Insofar the provisions of Sec. 43B(f) of the IT Act are concerned, we are in agreement

M/S DIAMOND RED TANNERIES,KAPURTHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

6-7 of the impugned order are as follows:- “4.3.3 it is relevant to refer to the following case laws which have been decided against the appellant. (i) M/s Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT The Hon’ble Madras High Court vide its order dated October 23, 2018 has held scope of Section 43B and Section

J.M.C PLYWOOD,GORAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, PHAGWARA

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

6-7 of the impugned order are as follows:- “4.3.3 it is relevant to refer to the following case laws which have been decided against the appellant. (i) M/s Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT The Hon’ble Madras High Court vide its order dated October 23, 2018 has held scope of Section 43B and Section

KHALSA BAKERY ,KAPUTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

6-7 of the impugned order are as follows:- “4.3.3 it is relevant to refer to the following case laws which have been decided against the appellant. (i) M/s Unifac Management Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT The Hon’ble Madras High Court vide its order dated October 23, 2018 has held scope of Section 43B and Section

PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK,KAPURTHALA vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A No. 648/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Aaalp0309F Asst. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. Punjab Gramin Bank Circle-Iv, Jalandhar. Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala. (Appellant) (Respondent)

6 and 1, 2, 10 respectively and relevant findings of the Tribunal were read. 3. The Ld. DR fairly agreed that the issues were covered in favour of assessee, therefore the adjournment application was rejected and the cases were taken as heard. 4. We have heard the rival parties and have gone though the material placed on record

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK, KAPURTHALA

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A No. 648/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Aaalp0309F Asst. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. Punjab Gramin Bank Circle-Iv, Jalandhar. Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala. (Appellant) (Respondent)

6 and 1, 2, 10 respectively and relevant findings of the Tribunal were read. 3. The Ld. DR fairly agreed that the issues were covered in favour of assessee, therefore the adjournment application was rejected and the cases were taken as heard. 4. We have heard the rival parties and have gone though the material placed on record

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were indulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during Investigation, Impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were to be deleted

M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 153C as in the assessment year 2005-06 and order was passed by the Assessing Officer us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) and thereby, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction U/s 80-IC @ 20% of the total “eligible profit”. VI. Thereafter, for the later Assessment Yearsi.e. for the Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the same method