M/S SHYMA LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICERII, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

161 ITD 1 (Coch), as well as by the Amritsar Bench of the tribunal per its order in St. Jude’s Convent School & Ors. v. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 749/Asr/2013, dated 26.09.2016/copy on record), following the afore-cited decisions by the tribunal. Though the provisos to the sub-section (2) were inserted by Finance

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR vs. DR SHYAM LAL THAPAR NURSING HOME, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

161 ITD 1 (Coch), as well as by the Amritsar Bench of the tribunal per its order in St. Jude’s Convent School & Ors. v. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 749/Asr/2013, dated 26.09.2016/copy on record), following the afore-cited decisions by the tribunal. Though the provisos to the sub-section (2) were inserted by Finance

SHREE AMAR KSHATRIYA SABHA CHARITABLE TRUST ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

disallowances of the exemptions claimed u/s 11 and 10(23C) of the Act 61, by the assessee trust , who otherwise is entitled to the said exemptions. 5.2 In support of his argument he relied on various decisions of various coordinate Benches: i. In the case of Sirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. ACIT( Exem), in ITA 609/Pune/2024 , Asst year

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

disallowing the excise duty credit of Rs. 5,26,484/-. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts and has failed to appreciate that the AO having taken a view that the subsidies amounting to Rs. 5,26,484/- are capital in nature and then erred in not giving the same treatment while working out book

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

1) should have been I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 8 Assessment Year: 2022-23 allowed as per provisions of section 72 of the Act because the same is within the period of eight years. 6.2 However, he was fair enough to admit that the assessee committed an inadvertent error during the course of filing the return of income ( for the year under

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

1. That the Revenue has wrongly rejected the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d), on account of dividend and interest received on investment made in other cooperative society banks. Thus, order is bad in law. 2. That the Revenue allowed the deduction u/s 80P during the assessment

SHRI TARSAIM SINGH JAMWAL,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

161 to 163/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2019-20 Sh. Tarsaim Singh Jamwal, V. Deputy Commissioner of H. No. 73, Sector-B, Income Tax, Central Circle, Sainik Colony, Jammu Aayakar Bhawan, Railhead (J&K)-180015 Complex, Panama Chowk, Jammu [PAN: ACIPJ 8277A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Joginder Singh, CA Respondent by : Sh. S. R. Kaushik

SHRI TARSAIM SINGH JAMWAL,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

161 to 163/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2019-20 Sh. Tarsaim Singh Jamwal, V. Deputy Commissioner of H. No. 73, Sector-B, Income Tax, Central Circle, Sainik Colony, Jammu Aayakar Bhawan, Railhead (J&K)-180015 Complex, Panama Chowk, Jammu [PAN: ACIPJ 8277A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Joginder Singh, CA Respondent by : Sh. S. R. Kaushik

SHRI TARSAIM SINGH JAMWAL,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMMU

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

161 to 163/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2019-20 Sh. Tarsaim Singh Jamwal, V. Deputy Commissioner of H. No. 73, Sector-B, Income Tax, Central Circle, Sainik Colony, Jammu Aayakar Bhawan, Railhead (J&K)-180015 Complex, Panama Chowk, Jammu [PAN: ACIPJ 8277A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Joginder Singh, CA Respondent by : Sh. S. R. Kaushik

M/S. THE FARIDKOT PRIMARY COOP AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK.LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed by the AO on a different ground that area of operation of the assessee was not confined to its single taluk, and that he has wrongly interpreted the definition of Primary Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank as given in explanation to section 80P(4) of the Act. In support of its contention, the ld. AR has filed a paper

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

1.e. Rs. 2,45,14,364/- from M/s Universal Foods Corporation, Fazilka and Rs 2,43,78,214/- from M/s Evergreen Sales Corporation, Fazilka) 6.10 Accordingly, addition of Rs. 5,86,710/- (i.e. 1.2% of Rs. 4,88,92,578) is upheld out of the total addition of Rs.6,43,54,912/-.” 6. Regarding the issue of reopening