THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that CIT(A) has ignored the findings of the TPO and applied LIBOR, for rate on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises in US and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,40,164/- on account of interest on loan advanced to the AE and addition

SHRI AMAR NATH JAIN MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTION ) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 164(1) of the IT Act. The appellant had filed an application for rectification of the order before the AO which has been rejected on the ground that denial of basic exemption has been specifically discussed in the order passed and therefore, is beyond the powers available u/s 154 of the IT Act. 4.3 The appellant has reiterated

SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

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

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

164-165 of the This clearly shows that the AO has made the addition on the basis of surmises and conjectures even without going through paper book] the Audit Report. 2. Besides the above, we are also enclosing herewith the ledger account of electricity expenses from which your goodself will find that the electricity expenses for the godown are duly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

disallowance of Rs. 11,82,945/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of claim of payment of interest on the unexplained cash credits. 8. Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal.” 3. The department has raised a sole major issue spread over into 4 grounds of appeal regarding deletion of addition of Rs.1

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to appellant, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to appellant, who on other hand, had prima facie discharged initial burden of substantiating purchases through various documentation

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard

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

2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts in nottreating the income from sale of paper as trading income andwhether he was correct in not keeping the same outside thepurview of section 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the groundsof appeal on or before is heard