THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowed if they are made in cash in the sums exceeding the amount specified under s. 40A(3). We have earlier observed that r. 6DD has to be read along with s. 40A(3). The rule also contemplates payments made for stock-in-trade and raw materials. This rule is in accordance with the terms of s. 40A(3

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

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)

Section 36(1) & 43B which are effective from 01.04.2021 and the appeal of the assessee is for Ass. Yr. 2020-21. 3. The orders of the Ld CIT (Appeals) may kindly be set aside in respect to disallowance of Late payment of ESI & PF and addition confirmed by CIT (A) be deleted.” I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 7 A.Ys

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)

Section 36(1) & 43B which are effective from 01.04.2021 and the appeal of the assessee is for Ass. Yr. 2020-21. 3. The orders of the Ld CIT (Appeals) may kindly be set aside in respect to disallowance of Late payment of ESI & PF and addition confirmed by CIT (A) be deleted.” I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 7 A.Ys

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)

Section 36(1) & 43B which are effective from 01.04.2021 and the appeal of the assessee is for Ass. Yr. 2020-21. 3. The orders of the Ld CIT (Appeals) may kindly be set aside in respect to disallowance of Late payment of ESI & PF and addition confirmed by CIT (A) be deleted.” I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023 7 A.Ys

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

3. While processing the return of income a sum of Rs. 791,417 has been added back towards amount disallowable u/s 36 which stands mentioned at point no. 6k of "Annexure - Part A OI (Other information)" which is a part of 143(1) enclosed along with the appeal memo. Relevant page is however being enclosed at page I.T.A. No.192/Asr/2022

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. SH. DARSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN, PATHANKOT

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 566(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Adjpm7623B

143(3) of the Income Tax ('the Act' hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 by the assessing authority vide order dated 28.03.2016. 2. The principal issue arising in the instant appeal is the sustainability of the disallowance u/s. 40A(3) effected by the Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment, since deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The same

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

3 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 4. That the Id.CIT(A)/NFAC, failed to appreciate that impugned disallowance, involving intense legal debate, could not made under the limited scope 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

3 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 4. That the Id.CIT(A)/NFAC, failed to appreciate that impugned disallowance, involving intense legal debate, could not made under the limited scope of section 143

DUPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. SH. VINOD ARORA, , BATHINDA

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

section 40A(3) of the Act, the AO disallowed the same. Accordingly, the AO after, inter alia, making the aforesaid disallowance of Rs. 2,07,24,418/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act, therein, vide his order passed u/s 143

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT. LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 153C as in the assessment year 2005-06 and order was passed by the Assessing Officer us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) and thereby, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction U/s 80-IC @ 20% of the total “eligible profit”. VI. Thereafter, for the later Assessment Yearsi.e. for the Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the same method

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 153C as in the assessment year 2005-06 and order was passed by the Assessing Officer us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) and thereby, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction U/s 80-IC @ 20% of the total “eligible profit”. VI. Thereafter, for the later Assessment Yearsi.e. for the Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the same method

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT. LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 153C as in the assessment year 2005-06 and order was passed by the Assessing Officer us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) and thereby, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction U/s 80-IC @ 20% of the total “eligible profit”. VI. Thereafter, for the later Assessment Yearsi.e. for the Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the same method

M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 153C as in the assessment year 2005-06 and order was passed by the Assessing Officer us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) and thereby, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction U/s 80-IC @ 20% of the total “eligible profit”. VI. Thereafter, for the later Assessment Yearsi.e. for the Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the same method

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 153C as in the assessment year 2005-06 and order was passed by the Assessing Officer us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) and thereby, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction U/s 80-IC @ 20% of the total “eligible profit”. VI. Thereafter, for the later Assessment Yearsi.e. for the Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the same method

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD.,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 153C as in the assessment year 2005-06 and order was passed by the Assessing Officer us 153C r.w.s. 143(3) and thereby, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction U/s 80-IC @ 20% of the total “eligible profit”. VI. Thereafter, for the later Assessment Yearsi.e. for the Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the same method