MEDALLAY EXPORTS,JALANDHAR vs. ASSSTANT COMMISSIONER OF NCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

124 & 125/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Raghu Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The DCIT Paragpur, GT Road, Jalandhar Circle-1, Jalandhar PAN NO: AACCA9957F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri J.S. Bhasin, Advocate Revenue by : Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR Assessment Year: 2019-20 Medallay Exports Vs The Asst. CIT D-28, Focial Point Circle-2, Jalandhar Jalandhar

SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

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

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

disallowance. ii. Paramount Impex v. AC IT, Circle-J, Ludhiana [2020] 117 taxmann.com 802 (Chandigarh Trib.) Section 145 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Rejection of Account (Non-maintenance of stock register) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Whether where assessee was dealing in a large number of small items and it was consistently following method of determining stock

MESERS AMARNARTH AGGARWAL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

section 36(2)(i) no deduction of bad 4 Amarnath Aggarwal B. P Ltd v. Dy.CIT doubtful debts. The assessee’s contention is that the assessee wanted to purchase the land in anticipation for financial gain in Panchkula and paid the amount accordingly. The assessee denied that he never claimed this amount u/s 36(2

SH. SATISH JAIN,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

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

124 ITR 391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income "arising or accruing in India". The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, "income payable for service rendered in India

SANT VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

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

124 ITR 391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income "arising or accruing in India". The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, "income payable for service rendered in India

TRG INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

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

124 ITR 391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income "arising or accruing in India". The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, "income payable for service rendered in India

AMRITSAR SWADESHI TEXTILE CORPORATION,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

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

124 ITR 391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income "arising or accruing in India". The amendment to the section by way of an Explanation in 1983 effected a change in the scope of that judicial definition so as to include with effect from 1979, "income payable for service rendered in India

SHRI SWARAN SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1), JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assesse is allowed in the terms indicated as above

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

124 (AT) (TM) “It is also true that the principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax proceedings but equally important, is the rule of consistency, which has been held to be applicable in tax proceedings. If the facts and circumstances of the earlier year are similar, the same view should ordinarily be followed in the subsequent years

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

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

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

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

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

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

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

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

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD.,, JALANDHAR

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

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

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

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

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

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

ARYA SHIKSHA MANDAL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WAD ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 126/Asr/2022 is allowed

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

2. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is an educational trust and running schools about 125 years. The assessee trust has been regularly filing its return by claiming exemption u/s 10(22) of the Act. And after the abolition of section 10(22) the trust has been filing its return by claiming exemption