VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

disallowance of\ndeduction or addition of income appearing in form\n26AS or form 16A'.\n5.\nWithout prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the Ld.\nCIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that even\nif the benefit of lower tax rate as per section 115BAC\nis denied to the assessee, then, in such a case, the\nassessee is entitled to avail deduction

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

disallowance of expenditure being hit by the provisions of section 40A(3) has been thoroughly examined by the AO in course of original proceedings which is evident from the body of the original order dated 09/11/2016 where the AO has examined the same and has observed as follows: “2. The assessee firm engaged in the business of civil contractor

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

RAHUL KHINDRI,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 37/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rahul Khindri, बनाम A.O., Cpc, 2157, Bazar Sirki Banda, Banglore Katra Dullo, Amritsar Indra Nagar, 143001 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Apfpk9150F अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That The Ld. C1T(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 31.07.2023 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Providing The Benefit Of Lower Tax As Per Section 115Bac Due To The Fact That Form 10 Ie Was Not Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.12.2021. 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 2

119 of the Act, provides relaxation in respect of the following compliances: 4. The due date of furnishing of Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which was 31st October 2021 under sub- section (1) of section 139 of the Act, as extended to 30th November 2021 and 15th February 2022 bv Circular No.9/2021 37-Asr-2024 Rahul

RAVI KANT LUTHRA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 444/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ravi Kant Luthra, 1-Patel Vs. Adit, Cpc, Chowk Guru Bazar, Amritsar. Bengaluru. [Pan:-Alnpk7173Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Himanshu Gupta, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

119 of the Act, provides relaxation in respect of the following compliances: 4. The due date of furnishing of Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which was 31st October 2021 under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act, as extended to 30th November 2021 and 15th Februarv 2022 bv Circular No.9/2021 dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. MEASAGE BHAGWATI LACTO VEGETARIAN EXPORTS (P) LIMITED, FEROZEPUR CANTT

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

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

disallowance of bad debts of Rs. 1,98,63,037/- in contravention into the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the record of the appellant- company filed return of income declaring net income of Rs.11,95,70,120/- on 31.03.2017. During the course of scrutiny proceedings

M/S ROYAL FURNISHERS,JAMMU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD - 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

119 / ASR/ 2021 has categorically held the view that the amendments were made available to the statute vide the Finance Act 2021, Explanation 5 to section 43B and Explanation 2 to section 36(i)(va) are applicable w.e.f. 01-04-2021 onwards. Therefore, the same would not have any bearing on the case of assessee. Accordingly, as 5 Royal Furnishers

SHRI RAJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

119-B, Punjab Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Avenue, Ladhewali, Jalandhar. Income Tax, Central [PAN: AAFPT4090C] Circle-II, Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. Nos. 111 & 113/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs. Rajan Batra, 46-Chotti Tax, Central Circle-I, Baradari Part-1, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AEVPB4152K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA. Respondent

SHRI RJAN BATRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

119-B, Punjab Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Avenue, Ladhewali, Jalandhar. Income Tax, Central [PAN: AAFPT4090C] Circle-II, Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A. Nos. 111 & 113/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs. Rajan Batra, 46-Chotti Tax, Central Circle-I, Baradari Part-1, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AEVPB4152K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA. Respondent