SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

1 to 6 of appeal states that Pr.CIT has erred in passing order under section 263 of the Act, which is illegal and without jurisdiction and Pr.CIT has grossly erred in holding the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, even though the AO has carried out necessary enquiries

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 144 by him, is invalid; and (c) that the disallowance u/s. 80-IB as well as of the indirect expenditure (as debited to the profit and loss account), made at 50% thereof, by the AO, is liable to be deleted. Qua the first, the same is of little consequence in the instant proceedings as the assessee

SHRI DARPAN JAIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX WARD - 1(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

131 of the Act as per the details filed by the assessee to confirm the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act by appreciating the appellant assessee is constrained that he had gone into soar relation with the loan creditor also of ongoing court cases could be sufficient reason

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

1.e. Rs. 2,45,14,364/- from M/s Universal Foods Corporation, Fazilka and Rs 2,43,78,214/- from M/s Evergreen Sales Corporation, Fazilka) 6.10 Accordingly, addition of Rs. 5,86,710/- (i.e. 1.2% of Rs. 4,88,92,578) is upheld out of the total addition of Rs.6,43,54,912/-.” 6. Regarding the issue of reopening

SH. BASANT KUMAR,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 37(1) (for any revenue expenditure generally), etc. The matter stands dealt with and explained at considerable length by the Tribunal per its special bench decision in ITO v. Kenaram Saha and Subhash Saha [2009] 116 ITD 1 (Kol)(SB); and more recently in Gurdas Garg v. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 456/Asr/2013, dated 28/2/2014) (also referred

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

section 263 be quashed, annulled and cancelled in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play. GOA:- 14:- Vide ground of appeal No.14, it is humbly prayed that in the event of any adversity arising out of the brief written submission besides judgement set, I.T.A. No. 425/Asr/2019 19 Assessment Year: 2014-15 assessee may kindly be afforded an effective opportunity

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

1 of the revenue is allowed. Ground No. 2 7. During the assessment the ld. AO disallowed 10% of unverifiable expenses amount of Rs.66,20,474/- which is worked out to Rs.6,62,048/-. In argument the ld. DR placed that the ld. CIT(A) has reduced the disallowance from 10% to 8% related to unverifiable expenses. So, the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

1 of the revenue is allowed. Ground No. 2 7. During the assessment the ld. AO disallowed 10% of unverifiable expenses amount of Rs.66,20,474/- which is worked out to Rs.6,62,048/-. In argument the ld. DR placed that the ld. CIT(A) has reduced the disallowance from 10% to 8% related to unverifiable expenses. So, the addition

SMT. AVTAR KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 216/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 145(3), we, for the reasons afore-stated, as well as that may find elaboration in the subsequent part of this order, see no infirmity therein qua the assessee’s trading 7 Avtar Kaur v. Asst. CIT results, which only stand disturbed by the Revenue. Rather, we observe, apart from absence of stock reconciliation/details, also un-reconciled balances with

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

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

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

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

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

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

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

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

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

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

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

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

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

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

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

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from