ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

section 14A of the Act was not applicable and it could not have been invoked; that had the assessee claimed this income exempt, it was exactly the same as in the earlier years, in which years, it was held that in view of the assessee's own funds, no disallowance of interest cost could have been made I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

section 14A of the Act was not applicable and it could not have been invoked; that had the assessee claimed this income exempt, it was exactly the same as in the earlier years, in which years, it was held that in view of the assessee's own funds, no disallowance of interest cost could have been made I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017

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

In the result, the ground No

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

section 14A of the Act was not applicable and it could not have been invoked; that had the assessee claimed this income exempt, it was exactly the same as in the earlier years, in which years, it was held that in view of the assessee's own funds, no disallowance of interest cost could have been made I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

section 14A of the Act was not applicable and it could not have been invoked; that had the assessee claimed this income exempt, it was exactly the same as in the earlier years, in which years, it was held that in view of the assessee's own funds, no disallowance of interest cost could have been made I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

section 14A of the Act was not applicable and it could not have been invoked; that had the assessee claimed this income exempt, it was exactly the same as in the earlier years, in which years, it was held that in view of the assessee's own funds, no disallowance of interest cost could have been made I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR, KASHMIR vs. JAMMU AND KASHMIR POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., SRINAGAR, KASHMIR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed being

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

disallowed while computing the taxable income as per normal provisions of Income tax Act but for the purpose of determination of book profits under MAT as per section 115JB, no further adjustments are required to be made , because amount incurred towards CSR activity was not one of the adjustment as per the explanation [1] and he submits that the issue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SRINAGAR, RAJBAGH SRINGAR vs. JAMMU AND KASHMIR POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., SRINAGAR, KASHMIR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed being

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

disallowed while computing the taxable income as per normal provisions of Income tax Act but for the purpose of determination of book profits under MAT as per section 115JB, no further adjustments are required to be made , because amount incurred towards CSR activity was not one of the adjustment as per the explanation [1] and he submits that the issue

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE CHINARS, NEAR GOVT. SILK FACTORY, RAJBAGH , SRINAGAR vs. JAMMU AND KASHMIR POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., SRINAGAR, KASHMIR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed being

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

disallowed while computing the taxable income as per normal provisions of Income tax Act but for the purpose of determination of book profits under MAT as per section 115JB, no further adjustments are required to be made , because amount incurred towards CSR activity was not one of the adjustment as per the explanation [1] and he submits that the issue

OSAKA ALLOYS & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JLD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

115 JB is a debatable issue, and as such, it cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Section 154 of the Income Tax Act permits rectification only for mistakes that are "apparent from the record," ie, clear, undisputed errors requiring no detailed interpretation. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in failing to recognize that no prior

MESERS AXON LABORATORIES,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3 , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance as it is purely ad hoc in nature without pointing any defect in records and the same cannot be sustained. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs.2,37,510/- and allow gorund no.3 raised by the assessee. 9. Now we take up ground no.4 through which the assessee has stated that the ld. CIT(A) erred in invoking

G.S SETHI & COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (5), JALANDHAR

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and therein making disallowance of interest to the extent of Rs. 25,87,115

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

disallowances made in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act was challenged before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The observations of CIT(A) in Page no. 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

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

disallowances made in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act was challenged before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The observations of CIT(A) in Page no. 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

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

disallowances made in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act was challenged before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The observations of CIT(A) in Page no. 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

VAAHO AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 ( 1 ) , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee related all grounds of ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenash. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance can be made. The view was taken on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts in the case of CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2007] 213 CTR 268, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 and Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-I, Kolkata vs M/S. Vijay

MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA

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

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

115/- is deleted.” 10. The ld. Counsel further relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT, Surat-1 vs. TejuaRohitkumar Kapadia, (2018) 94 taxmann.com325 (SC) held: I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 13 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 “Section 69C of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) -Assessing Officer had disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs. MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS ,, BATHINDA

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

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

115/- is deleted.” 10. The ld. Counsel further relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT, Surat-1 vs. TejuaRohitkumar Kapadia, (2018) 94 taxmann.com325 (SC) held: I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 13 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 “Section 69C of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) -Assessing Officer had disallowed

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowed the entire purchases amounting to ₹ 42693470/- holding as unverifiable purchases from the following parties: - Sr. NoName of the Concern Amount of Purchases 1. Madan lalPahuja M/S Shiv bholeKirpa Traders 1.05 Cr Shivpuri, Ludhiana 2. Lovy Steel and Allied Industries, Sector 3-C 0.17 Cr Gobindgarh 3. Jatinder kumar Shree Nath Ispatudhyog, gobindgarh2.06 Cr 4. Shree Radhey Steel & Alloys