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)

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 in computing the total income in the return' 9.2. Sub-section (1) of section 143

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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

ii) Deduction Claimed for Industrial Undertaking u/s 80IA / 80IAB /80IAC/ IB/IC / IBA/80ID/80IE/10A/10AA. 4. Subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) has been complied with and after verification of all particulars, the first issue relating to investments has been accepted to have been properly explained and no additions made on that count. Regarding the second issue relating to the claim for deduction

J.M.C PLYWOOD,GORAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, PHAGWARA

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowances made in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act was challenged before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The observations of CIT(A) in Page no. 6-7 of the impugned order are as follows:- “4.3.3 it is relevant to refer to the following case laws which have been decided against

KHALSA BAKERY ,KAPUTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowances made in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act was challenged before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The observations of CIT(A) in Page no. 6-7 of the impugned order are as follows:- “4.3.3 it is relevant to refer to the following case laws which have been decided against

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

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowances made in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act was challenged before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The observations of CIT(A) in Page no. 6-7 of the impugned order are as follows:- “4.3.3 it is relevant to refer to the following case laws which have been decided against

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

ii) Provision for payment of gratuity not allowable u/s 40A(7) of the Act: During the assessment proceedings, it has been found that an amount of Rs.22,59,445/- has been debited to Profit and Loss A/c under the head Provisions for payment of gratuity which is disallowable u/s 40A(7) of the income Tax Act, 1961. Out of I.T.A

ROYAL FURNISHER ,JAMMU vs. ASSESING OFFICER WARD- 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). In this decision, it was noted by Hon’ble Court that there was divergent of opinion amongst various Hon’ble High Courts viz. High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi favoring the interpretation beneficial to the assessee on one hand whereas High Courts of Kerala and Gujarat favoring interpretation in favour

VAAHO AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 ( 1 ) , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee related all grounds of ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenash. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 2(24)(x) rws 36(1)(va) of the Act, as the employees contribution is to be paid within the due date of payment as prescribed in the respective Acts (PF/ESI Acts) to claim deduction. The assessee paid the amount before filing of Income tax Return U/s 139(1) of the Act but not within the stipulated dates under

M/S. KARNAIL SINGH & COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), hence, the adjournment application of the assessee is rejected for insufficient reason, and it is decided to hear the appeal on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed his Return of Income on 30-09-2019 declaring a total income of Rs.2,99,46,511/-. The return

M/S. KARNAIL SINGH & COMPANY ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), hence, the adjournment application of the assessee is rejected for insufficient reason, and it is decided to hear the appeal on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed his Return of Income on 30-09-2019 declaring a total income of Rs.2,99,46,511/-. The return

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) on account of contribution to Provident Fund and ESI ignoring that the same were deposited by the assessee within the financial year or before the due date of furnishing the return and the delay in deposit by a few days under the provisions of ESI Act was due to technical reasons only. 2.1 That

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) on account of contribution to Provident Fund and ESI ignoring that the same were deposited by the assessee within the financial year or before the due date of furnishing the return and the delay in deposit by a few days under the provisions of ESI Act was due to technical reasons only. 2.1 That

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3, SRINAGAR vs. MEASAGE SAIFCO CEEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Department and CO of the Assesse is 23

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

143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 10 I.T.A. No. 451/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 6/Asr/2022 Assessment year, 2013-14 25.02.2016, the AO had duly mentioned month-wise balance of the sister concern of the assessee company in the books of accounts of the assessee company as per the details given hereunder in TABLE-“A” and had charged the interest