THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section 10B

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section 10B

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section 10B

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section 10B

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section 10B

SHRI NITIN AIMA,SHRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

10B, converting them to "deduction" instead of "exclusion" provision, leaving sections 10C, 11 & 13A as "exclusion" provisions. The subsequent insertions of other sections in Chapter-Ill including section 10AA have retained the character of "deduction" provision. With the shift from "exclusion" to "deduction", the benefit is now akin to deductions under Chapter-VI- A. 7. The provisions of section 10AA

INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR vs. M/S RADHA RAMAN CHARITABLE TRUST, GURDASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

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

10B alongwith the return of income in view of the provisions of section 12A(l)(b) of the Act. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify or delete, many of the grounds of appeal at large stage.” 2. defined u/s 2(24) r.w.s. 2 (15) of the Act. The return was filed u/s 139. The return was processed

SHREE AMAR KSHATRIYA SABHA CHARITABLE TRUST ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

2. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by CPC while passing the Intimation u/s 143(1). As such the same is liable to be cancelled. Similarly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) thereby confirming the same is also bad in the eyes of law and the same is also liable to be cancelled

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 3,97,500 claimed under section 80G of the Act, being 50% of the eligible amount of donations made during the relevant previous year. 10. That the AO erred in confirming the deemed income of Rs 12,50,000 under section 41(1). That the addition is made solely based on information available

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. MS CHANDAR BHAGA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

disallowing the 2 I.T.A. No.408/Asr/2024 ITO v. Chandar Bhaga Educational Trust claim for exemption u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B within the stipulated time frame of at least one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return u/s 139(1). 2. Grounds of appeal taken

SNATAN DHARM SABHA,MUKERIAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

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

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

10B which was supposed to be filed (uploaded in the portal) has not been filed within the proper time, resulting in disallowance of Rs.2.17 crores as per order which has resulted in a tax demand of Rs.1.28 crores u/s 143(1). 4. The appeal filed before the ld. first appellate authority has been dismissed in limine without any adjudication

SRI SHYAM CHARAN SEWA TRUST,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS ) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

disallowed by the CPC, Bangalore and total addition was made Rs. 11,46,800/-. The assessee had not filed the audit report in Form No. 10B with the return u/s 139. Accordingly, the return was treated as defective u/s 139(9). The assessee rectified within one month &submitted the report on dated 23.03.2019 as time allowed in the deficiency letter