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)

143(1) by disallowing the payment u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. 2. All appeals are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. For brevity, we consider grounds in ITA No.23/Asr/2023 for the AY 2019-20&ITA No.14/Asr/2023 for the AY 2020- 21, where there is only change

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)

143(1) by disallowing the payment u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. 2. All appeals are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. For brevity, we consider grounds in ITA No.23/Asr/2023 for the AY 2019-20&ITA No.14/Asr/2023 for the AY 2020- 21, where there is only change

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY 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)

143(1) by disallowing the payment u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. 2. All appeals are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. For brevity, we consider grounds in ITA No.23/Asr/2023 for the AY 2019-20&ITA No.14/Asr/2023 for the AY 2020- 21, where there is only change

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

2(3), Cuttack in ITA 98/CTK/2022, date of order 17.10.2022. 9. The grievance of the assessee which was emphasized by the ld. Counsel that the revenue no jurisdiction to add back the amount U/s 143(1). It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act unless a case

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

2(3), Cuttack in ITA 98/CTK/2022, date of order 17.10.2022. 9. The grievance of the assessee which was emphasized by the ld. Counsel that the revenue no jurisdiction to add back the amount U/s 143(1). It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act unless a case

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

2(3), Cuttack in ITA 98/CTK/2022, date of order 17.10.2022. 9. The grievance of the assessee which was emphasized by the ld. Counsel that the revenue no jurisdiction to add back the amount U/s 143(1). It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act unless a case

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

2(3), Cuttack in ITA 98/CTK/2022, date of order 17.10.2022. 9. The grievance of the assessee which was emphasized by the ld. Counsel that the revenue no jurisdiction to add back the amount U/s 143(1). It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act unless a case

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

2(3), Cuttack in ITA 98/CTK/2022, date of order 17.10.2022. 9. The grievance of the assessee which was emphasized by the ld. Counsel that the revenue no jurisdiction to add back the amount U/s 143(1). It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act unless a case

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

2. The assessee has challenged common issue in both the appeals regarding disallowance made by the CPC u/s 36(1)(va) by rejecting the assessee’s claim u/s 43B on account of payment of PF & ESI after the due date. 3. The assessee has filed an adjournment application, stating therein that its counsel shall not be able to attend

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

2. The assessee has challenged common issue in both the appeals regarding disallowance made by the CPC u/s 36(1)(va) by rejecting the assessee’s claim u/s 43B on account of payment of PF & ESI after the due date. 3. The assessee has filed an adjournment application, stating therein that its counsel shall not be able to attend

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

Disallowance u/s 40A(7) was restricted to Rs. 19,52,569/- as an amount of Rs. 2,63,876/- was already added. 6.2 In the submission, the appellant has submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) confirming the similar addition made u/s 143(1) was challenged before the Hon’ble ITAT and that the matter has been restored back

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

143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC grossly erred in facts and on law in arbitrarily confirming the addition of Rs.36,92,758/-, as wrongly made by the Id.AO, by disallowing deduction claimed u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) in respect interest earned from Cooperative Bank. 2. That

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

143(2) reopening reassessment of proceedings read with section assessment filed by 147 the assessee 8 I.T.A. No. 117/Asr/2024 Jalalabad Solvex Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT iv 08-12- Notice under The assessee has 2021 section 142(1) filed the required information in the Notice under section 142(1) issued on 08- 12- reply dated 2021 asking for the information

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

143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC grossly erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the addition of Rs.94,13,739/-, as wrongly made by the Id.AO, by disallowing deduction claimed u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) in respect interest earned from Cooperative Banks. 2. That the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC

THE DALLA CO OP AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-, PHAGWARA

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

143(3) r.w.s 144B, vide order dated 06.05.2021. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is belatedly filed by 90 (ninety days). The assessee has filed an application for I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 2 Assessment Year: 2018-19 condonation, where the ld. counsel Sh. Tarun Bansal (Advocate) stated that his office staff Mr. Puneet

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

143(1) of the Act, made disallowance of Rs. 34.96,001.00 u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and that the CIT(A) / NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made by CPC Banglore, without adjudicating the ground no. 1, on merits regarding the appellant assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, although he was bound

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

143(1) of the Act, made disallowance of Rs. 34.96,001.00 u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and that the CIT(A) / NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made by CPC Banglore, without adjudicating the ground no. 1, on merits regarding the appellant assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, although he was bound

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

143(3) of the Act. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That having regard to the facts of the case, the NFAC has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.21,05,192/- as wrongly made by the ld. ITO by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect net interest earned from two Cooperative Banks

MEASAGE.G H AGRO PRODUCTS 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

2 of the above approval letter merely says that "Approval is hereby accorded u/s. 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to complete assessments u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act in the following case on the basis of draft assessment orders..."which clearly proves that the Addl. CIT had routinely given approval to the AO to pass