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

Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] when the payments were made before filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. Facts of the case, in brief are that the AO disallowed the deduction amounting to Rs.312,740/- during processing of the return U/s 143

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

Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] when the payments were made before filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. Facts of the case, in brief are that the AO disallowed the deduction amounting to Rs.312,740/- during processing of the return U/s 143

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

Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] when the payments were made before filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. Facts of the case, in brief are that the AO disallowed the deduction amounting to Rs.312,740/- during processing of the return U/s 143

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

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

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

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. 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

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] when the payments were made before filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. Brief fact of the case is that the ld. AO disallowed the deduction amounting to Rs.13,00,356/- during processing of the return U/s 143

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S KHOSLA INTERNATIONAL, BATALA

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30.03.2014 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09. 2. The appeal challenges the impugned order on the twin aspects on which the ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment, i.e., (i) that the reopening is invalid as a notice u/s. 148(1), issued

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

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

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

section 40A(2)(b), a part of the expenses considered as excess over the prevailing the market rate only could be disallowed. However in this case there is nothing on record about the fair market value of the services received by the assessee from its sister concern. Nothing has been mentioned by the AO in this regard

MESERS BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

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

section 40A(2)(b), a part of the expenses considered as excess over the prevailing the market rate only could be disallowed. However in this case there is nothing on record about the fair market value of the services received by the assessee from its sister concern. Nothing has been mentioned by the AO in this regard

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

143(3) of the Act was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. That the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 is also bad in law since the PCIT has failed to demonstrate as to how any of the conditions prescribed in Explanation 2 to section action 263 of the Act stood satisfied on the facts

THE NBI EMPLOYEES CO-OP NON-AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

143(3) was passed after detailed consideration and application of mind. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble CIT, is erred in law and on facts in making disallowing deduction of Rs.5,45,649/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on account of interest earned from banks without considering