M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

d)(i) exemption available u/s. 11 is denied if any property of the Trust is utilized by the persons referred in section 13(3) and if investment of the trust funds is made in the modes/ other than the modes specified under section 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The argument of assessee is that in respect of exemption

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

d)(i) exemption available u/s. 11 is denied if any property of the Trust is utilized by the persons referred in section 13(3) and if investment of the trust funds is made in the modes/ other than the modes specified under section 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The argument of assessee is that in respect of exemption

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

d)(i) exemption available u/s. 11 is denied if any property of the Trust is utilized by the persons referred in section 13(3) and if investment of the trust funds is made in the modes/ other than the modes specified under section 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The argument of assessee is that in respect of exemption

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

d)(i) exemption available u/s. 11 is denied if any property of the Trust is utilized by the persons referred in section 13(3) and if investment of the trust funds is made in the modes/ other than the modes specified under section 11(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The argument of assessee is that in respect of exemption

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

d) M/s Mohan Bekary Vs DCIT, ITA:- 273/Chd/2021 order dated 2.12.2021 e) Nipun Jain Vs. DCIT, ITA:- 71&72/Asr/2021 order dated 09.11.2021 f) M/s New Light Facility Management Vs. DCIT ITA:- 176&177/Asr/2021 order dated 22.12.2021 The counsel also submitted that all the payments have been made before the due date of filing of return of income

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

d) M/s Mohan Bekary Vs DCIT, ITA:- 273/Chd/2021 order dated 2.12.2021 e) Nipun Jain Vs. DCIT, ITA:- 71&72/Asr/2021 order dated 09.11.2021 f) M/s New Light Facility Management Vs. DCIT ITA:- 176&177/Asr/2021 order dated 22.12.2021 The counsel also submitted that all the payments have been made before the due date of filing of return of income

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

d) M/s Mohan Bekary Vs DCIT, ITA:- 273/Chd/2021 order dated 2.12.2021 e) Nipun Jain Vs. DCIT, ITA:- 71&72/Asr/2021 order dated 09.11.2021 f) M/s New Light Facility Management Vs. DCIT ITA:- 176&177/Asr/2021 order dated 22.12.2021 The counsel also submitted that all the payments have been made before the due date of filing of return of income

SHRI SUMAN SHARMA PROP. M/S LAXMI ENTERPRISES,KAPUTHALA vs. ASST. CPC/ INCOME TAX OFFCIER WARD-2, KAPUTHALA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further

LAKSHMI HANDICRAFTS,JALANDHAR CITY vs. ASST. CPC / INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (4), JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further

M/S PARAS VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE.II, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further

M/S NAGORY INDIA ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, JALANADHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further

GENESIS TROT ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (1) , JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD II(4), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

d) to sec 43B, assessee has the window within the IT Act to claim this expense as and when interest is paid to the Bank. ITA Nos.38 & 77/Asr./2017 5 ITA No. 119/Asr./2018 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal 17. I therefore have no hesitation in holding that the Assessing Officer has correctly disallowed interest debited as expenditure by the assessee when

SH. VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL, PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

d) to sec 43B, assessee has the window within the IT Act to claim this expense as and when interest is paid to the Bank. ITA Nos.38 & 77/Asr./2017 5 ITA No. 119/Asr./2018 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal 17. I therefore have no hesitation in holding that the Assessing Officer has correctly disallowed interest debited as expenditure by the assessee when

PUNJ MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. CPC/INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3), JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

17,287/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5

M/S SHREE GANESH KNITTERS,AMRITSAR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD -5 ( 5 ), AMRITSAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

17,287/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5

PUNJ MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. CPC/INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3), JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

17,287/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5

VARIETY ENTERPRISES,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

17,287/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5

M/S CEELA SPORTS ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

17,287/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5