M. K HOTEL & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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)

disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return' 9.2. Sub-section (1) of section 143

UNIVERSAL BIOMASS ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUHARSAHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 246A confirms that both are appealable before the ld. CIT(A). Distinguishes assessee’s contention that intimation u/s 143(1) merges with the assessment order u/s 143(3) and opined that merger depends on whether the adjustment made in the intimation is also a part of the scrutiny assessment and if so the adjustment merges with the assessment order

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

disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return' 9.2. Sub-section (1) of section 143

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

disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return' 9.2. Sub-section (1) of section 143

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

disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return' 9.2. Sub-section (1) of section 143

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

disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return' 9.2. Sub-section (1) of section 143

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

disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return' 9.2. Sub-section (1) of section 143

GLITTERS FOREVER HOUSE KEEPING SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

sections u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act.” 7. He further submitted that the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, made disallowance

GLITTERS FOREVER HOSE KEEPING SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

sections u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act.” 7. He further submitted that the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, made disallowance

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

disallowance U/s 143(1)(a)(iv) on the basis of fact furnished by the assessee was made which clearly fails within ambit of prima facie adjustment to be carried out U/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. Further, reliance was placed on the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 wherein the explanation to Section

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

143(1) amounting to Rs 4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section

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

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

143(1) amounting to Rs 4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) was justified. The appellant assessee has failed to rebut the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra) by any judgment of subsequent date. In view of that matter, an aadjustment under section 143

M/S CEELA SPORTS ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

143(1) amounting to Rs 4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section

M/S. S S FORGINGS,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (4), JALANDHAR

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

143(1) amounting to Rs 4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section

VARIETY ENTERPRISES,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

143(1) amounting to Rs 4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section

TALBRO INTERNATIONAL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 4 ( 1 ), JALANDHAR

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

143(1) amounting to Rs 4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section

M/S DIAMOND RED TANNERIES,KAPURTHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

143(1) amounting to Rs 4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section