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

154 & 143(1) of the Act. 2. At the outset, both the appeals of the different assessees are identical in nature and have a common factual backdrop. For the convenience, both the appeals are taken together for passing a common order. ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is taken as lead case. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That

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

154 r.w.s. 143(1) is I.T.A. No. 241/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 enclosed herewith wherefrom it is clear that the relief of Rs.9,12,665/- was allowed and it is requested that the necessary relief of Rs.9,12,665/- may kindly be allowed. 6. That the AO was not justified in charging tax on the so-called deemed total

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

154 of the I.T. Act on 30/06/2020. The same was dismissed vide order dated 17/08/2020. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the Order by CPC, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition by observing as under: 5.1 I have considered the submissions and facts of the case carefully. From perusal of the grounds

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

154 of the I.T. Act on 30/06/2020. The same was dismissed vide order dated 17/08/2020. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the Order by CPC, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition by observing as under: 5.1 I have considered the submissions and facts of the case carefully. From perusal of the grounds

OSAKA ALLOYS & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JLD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

1. That order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in appreciating that the calculation of book profit under section 115 JB is a debatable issue, and as such, it cannot be rectified under Section 154

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

disallowance u/s 143(1), because it is not as per provisions of law. 7.2 Secondly, he also submitted that on the face of the assessment order (paragraph – 1) it is categorically stated that there are two issues for which the case is selected for complete scrutiny. Firstly on account of verification of investments I.T.A. No. 267/Asr/2024 6 Assessment Year

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

In the result, the appellant’s appeal is Dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.143/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 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 was made u/s 43B and section 36(1)(va) for delay payments of ESI & PF. The case was further assessed and order was passed u/s 143(3). The same addition was added u/s 43B and 36(1)(va) for delay in payment of ESI and EPF amount to Rs.1,04,83,057/-. The assessee filed a rectification petition

INDU MAHAJAN,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAX CIRCLE-5 , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

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

disallowance was made for late deposit of contribution made in respect of PF & ESI u/s 36 (1) (va) of the Act. The assessee filed the rectification petition U/s 154 of the Act for wrong adjustment of delayed payment of PF & ESI which was paid before filing of return U/s 139(1). By invoking section

SHRI KAILASH CHAND (PROP) M.K. STEELS,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is decided in the terms indicated as above

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

1,(hereinafter referred to as “the CIT appeal” Jalandhar in respect of ratification order passed under section 154 of the act by the Assistant Commissioner of income tax, circle – II, Jalandhar (in short “the AO”). 2. The learned counsel for the assessee has filed an adjournment application, showing inability to appear for the hearing and present the case. This none

THE NAKODAR PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, NAKODAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 40(A(7) 10. That being so, the fact that an adjustment relating to disallowance of expenditure u/s 40A(7) indicated in Form No.3CD of the Audit Report was not made in the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) is a mistake apparent from record which can be rectified u/s 154

THE MUTHADA KHURD CO OPERATIVE AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

154 order has been left completely blank . 10. Secondly, it is only ascertainable from the order of the Ld CIT(A), that the disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80P, is presumably on the ground that the return was furnished beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE SUKHBIR AGRO ENERGY LIMITED , FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal ITA No

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

1) of the Act. The ld.AO disallowed the assessee’s claim and rejected the rectification petition, filed U/s 154 of the Act. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by challenging the orders of the ld. assessing authority, passed u/s 143(3) and section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE SUKHBIR AGRO ENERGY LIMITED, FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal ITA No

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

1) of the Act. The ld.AO disallowed the assessee’s claim and rejected the rectification petition, filed U/s 154 of the Act. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by challenging the orders of the ld. assessing authority, passed u/s 143(3) and section

SHRI RAJNISH DHAWAN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 143(1) without any opportunity to the assessee and ignoring that the deduction is allowable on merits and also allowed in earlier year. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any of the ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” ’ 3. The assessee has filed rectification application u/s 154 before

NEW LIGHT FACILITY MANAGEMENT ,JLANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4 (3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

154 of the Act. The DR has referred to the relevant part of the ld. CIT(A) order is as follows: “1. It has finally been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is clear distinction between employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law [in terms of Section 36(1 )(iv)] and its liability to deposit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. UNIVERSAL BIOMASS ENERGY PVT LTD, GURUHARSAHAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 80- 1A(7) of the Act and that is the reasons why the said claim for deduction has been disallowed by the CPC, Bangeluru. However, he could not explain as to why this claim for deduction has been initially allowed without any question, while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act and why this claim for deduction

FIRST INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.46/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

1. That having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that there was no mistake apparent on record and therefore, rectification Order passed by Ld. AO u/s 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable in law. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that reimbursement of freight

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

1), 6547/MUM/2017, AY 14-15 (ITAT-Mumbai), Date of Order-25/04/2018. “9. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the lower authorities that the assessee would not be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d), in respect of the interest

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

154, 155, 260, 262, or 263. I.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 5 6.2 We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has been justified in observing that the grievance against the AO for not having invoked the provisions of section 152 to drop the re-assessment proceedings cannot be addressed in the appellate proceedings. At this