KAY SWITCGEARS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely: — (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 (1) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

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

142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely: — (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

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

142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely: — (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account

M/S. RAMCO ENGG WORKS ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

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

142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely: — (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account

SHRI SACHIN KAPUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

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

142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely: — (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account

NAVODIA TIMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

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

142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely: — (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.21,05,192/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.238/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the the Act. In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.21,05,192/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE KOT RAM DASS COOP. THIRFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (4), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.86/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the the Act. In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.21,05,192/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied I.T.A. No.86/Asr/2021 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 on the order

M/S. GULZAR SINGH GURBACHAN SINGH,DISTT.BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 146&147/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2008-09

section 184(5), confirmed the (AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09) Gulzar Singh Gurbachan Singh v. CIT disallowance, finding the assessee’s case as covered u/ss. 144(1)(b) and 144(1)(c), with there being no issue as regards the service of the notices u/ss. 142(1) and 143(2

M/S. GULZAR SINGH GURBACHAN SINGH,DISTT.BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 146&147/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2008-09

section 184(5), confirmed the (AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09) Gulzar Singh Gurbachan Singh v. CIT disallowance, finding the assessee’s case as covered u/ss. 144(1)(b) and 144(1)(c), with there being no issue as regards the service of the notices u/ss. 142(1) and 143(2

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"

2,09,00,000 and Rs.17,53,638 against Kamaldeep Singh and M/s. Gupta Traders respectively. However, the perusal of records suggest that these are not relating to any business activity of the assessee, hence, such expenses are apparently not allowable. Further, the disputed assets involved in recovery of Rs.2,26,53,638 were not find place in balance sheet

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

142 CTR (SC) 122 ……………………. c) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHIMA BROS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA (1995) 123 CTR (Ker) 253 : (1995) 214 ITR 302 (Ker) ………………. That without prejudice to our submission that provisions of section 154/155 of the Act are not attracted in this case since there is no glaring mistake apparent from records, there is no obvious

JALALABAD SOLVEX PRIVATE LTD,JALALABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR-1, PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 142(1) issued on 08- 12- reply dated 2021 asking for the information:- 02/01/2022 and 28/02/2022. 1 Brief note on your business/sources of income 2. Copy of all financial statements (P & L, Balance sheet and annexures, 26AS statement Computation of total income etc.) 1. Copy of purchase ledger 2. Copy of sales ledger 3. Details of Business relation with

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

142(1) and 143(2) alongwith a detailed questionnaire were issued in response to which the assessee submitted an explanation. After consideration thereof, the Assessing Officer made additions to the income returned in respect of the assessment years under consideration which included an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- given by the assessee as a loan to Smt. Mohini Sharma

MEASAGE G.H AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

142(1) and 143(2) alongwith a detailed questionnaire were issued in response to which the assessee submitted an explanation. After consideration thereof, the Assessing Officer made additions to the income returned in respect of the assessment years under consideration which included an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- given by the assessee as a loan to Smt. Mohini Sharma

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

142(1) and 143(2) alongwith a detailed questionnaire were issued in response to which the assessee submitted an explanation. After consideration thereof, the Assessing Officer made additions to the income returned in respect of the assessment years under consideration which included an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- given by the assessee as a loan to Smt. Mohini Sharma

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

142(1) and 143(2) alongwith a detailed questionnaire were issued in response to which the assessee submitted an explanation. After consideration thereof, the Assessing Officer made additions to the income returned in respect of the assessment years under consideration which included an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- given by the assessee as a loan to Smt. Mohini Sharma