RAGHU EXPORTS ( INDIA ) PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCME TAX CIRCLE-1, 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

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

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

disallowed 80% of the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IC and relied upon the arguments as advanced by the Ld. CIT (DR) in the original proceedings before 17 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others the Hon’ble ITAT at the time of hearing of the appeal, which was decided by the Tribunal on 28.12.2012 for the same 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

disallowed 80% of the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IC and relied upon the arguments as advanced by the Ld. CIT (DR) in the original proceedings before 17 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others the Hon’ble ITAT at the time of hearing of the appeal, which was decided by the Tribunal on 28.12.2012 for the same 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

disallowed 80% of the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IC and relied upon the arguments as advanced by the Ld. CIT (DR) in the original proceedings before 17 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others the Hon’ble ITAT at the time of hearing of the appeal, which was decided by the Tribunal on 28.12.2012 for the same years

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

disallowed 80% of the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IC and relied upon the arguments as advanced by the Ld. CIT (DR) in the original proceedings before 17 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others the Hon’ble ITAT at the time of hearing of the appeal, which was decided by the Tribunal on 28.12.2012 for the same years

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

disallowed 80% of the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IC and relied upon the arguments as advanced by the Ld. CIT (DR) in the original proceedings before 17 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others the Hon’ble ITAT at the time of hearing of the appeal, which was decided by the Tribunal on 28.12.2012 for the same 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

disallowed 80% of the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IC and relied upon the arguments as advanced by the Ld. CIT (DR) in the original proceedings before 17 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others the Hon’ble ITAT at the time of hearing of the appeal, which was decided by the Tribunal on 28.12.2012 for the same years

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

disallowed 80% of the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IC and relied upon the arguments as advanced by the Ld. CIT (DR) in the original proceedings before 17 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others the Hon’ble ITAT at the time of hearing of the appeal, which was decided by the Tribunal on 28.12.2012 for the same years

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

disallowed 80% of the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IC and relied upon the arguments as advanced by the Ld. CIT (DR) in the original proceedings before 17 I.T.A. No. 506/Asr/2011 and others the Hon’ble ITAT at the time of hearing of the appeal, which was decided by the Tribunal on 28.12.2012 for the same years

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

3 Amarnath Aggarwal B. P Ltd v. Dy.CIT Singh and certain other persons of village Kundi Tehsil & Distt. Panchkula for purchasing land measuring 98 Kanals 8 Marlas. It was also stated that the assessee and other two entities paid Rs. 1,10,00,000/- out of which the assessee’s share is Rs.80 lacs, as earnest money against purchase

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

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

section 10(22) the trust has been filing its return by claiming exemption u/s 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act and his exemption was duly allowed by the department. During the assessment year under appeal the assessee filed a return u/s 139(1) and wrongly claiming exemption u/s 11. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and disallowance of exemption

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

3 & 4 of his order and has also confirmed that the Inspector has stated that the assessee has earned the income from sale of Milk as per his report in Asstt. Year 2010-11 and the only thing, which has been mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee has not brought any evidence to substantiate the source