SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

SHRI PARAMJIT SINGH SANDHU PROP. M/S MANIKARAN BUILDERS,AMRITSAR vs. DY.CPC/ DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees is allowed in the terms indicated as above

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

3. The ground no. 1 to 4, are interlinked and relates to confirmation of the disallowance of Rs.50,228/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although, before furnishing the return of income under section 139

RAGA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 8,33,978/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139

SHRIMATI SNEH LATA, DARBAR FEED MILLS,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Furnishing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. When The Matter Was Taken To The Ld. Cit(A) The Said Disallowance Was Sustained.

3. The main grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 71,654/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139

M/S P. RAM CHAND & COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY/ ASSSISTANAT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 1,59,255/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139

M/S JALANDHAR LEATHER ( INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 9,21,434/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139

SHRI INDERJIT BAJAJ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income; B) Amendment Made By Finance Act, 2021 In Section 36(Va) & Section 43B Is Not Retrospective But Is Prospective Applicable W.E.F. A.Y. 2021-22. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 48,99,708/- Made By The Ao Representing Delay In Remittance Of Employees Contribution Towards Provident Fund & Esi Disregarding The Various Decisions Of The Jurisdictional Hon'Ble Itat, Amritsar & Hon'Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court Relied Upon By The Assessee Which Are Binding On The Ld. Cit(A).

3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 48,99,708/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139

M/S AMAR COACH BUILDERS ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

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

3. That the order passed is without jurisdiction and illegal. 4. That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off. 9. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 6,11,928/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX FFICER WARD- 3 (3), JALANDHAR

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

3. That the order passed is without jurisdiction and illegal. 4. That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off. 9. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 6,11,928/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards

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

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

3. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, further erred to hold that amendments made in section 36(1)(va) and 43B, by the Finance Act, 2021, being clarificatory, had retrospective effect, to disallow the assessee’s claim under dispute. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, failed to appreciate that impugned disallowance, involving intense legal debate, could not made under

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

3. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, further erred to hold that amendments made in section 36(1)(va) and 43B, by the Finance Act, 2021, being clarificatory, had retrospective effect, to disallow the assessee’s claim under dispute. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, failed to appreciate that impugned disallowance, involving intense legal debate, could not made under

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

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

3. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, further erred to hold that amendments made in section 36(1)(va) and 43B, by the Finance Act, 2021, being clarificatory, had retrospective effect, to disallow the assessee’s claim under dispute. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, failed to appreciate that impugned disallowance, involving intense legal debate, could not made under

SHRI AMARJEET AGGARWAL & COMPANY,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (1), BATHINDA

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred on facts and law in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing the amount of Rs.13,02,609/- u/s 36(i)(va) on account of payment of employees contribution beyond the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act because the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 5 (1), AMRITSAR

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred on facts and law in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing the amount of Rs.13,02,609/- u/s 36(i)(va) on account of payment of employees contribution beyond the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act because the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

KOCHAR INFOTECH LIMITERD,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY CXOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred on facts and law in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing the amount of Rs.13,02,609/- u/s 36(i)(va) on account of payment of employees contribution beyond the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act because the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

M/S SPEEDWAYS RUBBER COMPANY ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred on facts and law in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing the amount of Rs.13,02,609/- u/s 36(i)(va) on account of payment of employees contribution beyond the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act because the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

KOCHAR SUNG UP ACRYLIC LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred on facts and law in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing the amount of Rs.13,02,609/- u/s 36(i)(va) on account of payment of employees contribution beyond the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act because the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi