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)

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(l)(va); SLP dismissed" (v) That since the assessee appellant falls within the jurisdiction of the Hon'able Punjab & Haryana High Court, therefore, the decision of the jurisdictional High Court necessarily have to prevail even if there are contrary decisions/judgment of other High Court having a different opinion. I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

178 to 181 related to tax invoice issued to M/s Zylo International, ii) APB page nos. 185 to 199proof related to payment received in bank account, iii) APB page nos. 201 to 206, the copy of bank statements related to reflection of transaction, received from the party. iv) APB page nos. 207 to 210, TDS Certificate in Form 16A related

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 (1) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

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

178 (SC) dated 12/10/2022. This decision was rendered in the context where assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act and not under section 143(1)(a). 6. Hence we direct the Ld.Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in respect of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, grounds

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

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

178 (SC) dated 12/10/2022. This decision was rendered in the context where assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act and not under section 143(1)(a). 6. Hence we direct the Ld.Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in respect of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, grounds

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

178 (SC) dated 12/10/2022. This decision was rendered in the context where assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act and not under section 143(1)(a). 6. Hence we direct the Ld.Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in respect of employees’ contribution to I.T.A. No.192/Asr/2022 25 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Provident Fund, in the facts

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

178 (SC) dated 12/10/2022. This decision was rendered in the context where I.T.A. Nos.261&253/Asr/2022 21 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act and not under section 143(1)(a). 6. Hence we direct the Ld.Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in respect of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund

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

178 (SC) dated 12/10/2022. This decision was rendered in the context where I.T.A. Nos.261&253/Asr/2022 21 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act and not under section 143(1)(a). 6. Hence we direct the Ld.Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in respect of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund

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

178 (SC), hence, the adjournment application of the assessee is rejected for insufficient reason, and it is decided to hear the appeal on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed his Return of Income on 30-09-2019 declaring a total income of Rs.2,99,46,511/-. The return was processed

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

178 (SC), hence, the adjournment application of the assessee is rejected for insufficient reason, and it is decided to hear the appeal on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed his Return of Income on 30-09-2019 declaring a total income of Rs.2,99,46,511/-. The return was processed

ROYAL FURNISHER ,JAMMU vs. ASSESING OFFICER WARD- 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 36(1)(va) and 43B which was observed in retrospectively and request for application in legal way. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld.AO. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. The assessee was called for hearing but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Considering the gravity of the issue, the matter was taken

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

178 (SC), but the ground was taken for considering the expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act. 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and first pointed out that the current appeal before the ITAT is against the order of the ld. AO which was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The ld. DR invited our attention in assessment order

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowing the delayed payments of ESI/EPF of Rs. 90,40,450/- which claimed to be duly stood paid under section 43B of the act before the due date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1) of the Act. 2. None attended for the appellant and the adjournment application filed by is found devoid of merits. Considering

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)

178(SC) vide their order of 12.10.2022, and as such the intimation order as passed for making the said disallowances/additions was without any basis and premises. 2. That the Worthy CIT(A) NFAC, was wrong & unjustified, both on facts and in law, to have passed orders upholding additions/disallowance of Rs. 1,04,83,057/-, in respect of disallowance as made

HINDU CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,PATHANKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIECLE 1), AMRITSAR

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

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

178 (SC), and disallowed the delayed payment of employees contribution under PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va). The assessee claimed that the tax audit report was duly wrong and the Auditor placed the wrong data before the revenue in tax audit report. The rectified tax audit report was duly filed before the ld. CIT(A) before completion of appeal

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

178-186 of case law paper book] Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 34(1) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Income escaping assessment - Illustrations - Assessment year 1958-59 - Whether reasons for formation of belief contemplated by section 147(a) for reopening of assessment must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on formation

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallow the expenses claimed and to make any enquiries/verifications in the matter.” 14. That the Assessee after receipt of the show cause notice, had given various replies including the reply on 15.3.2019, 19.03.2019 and 25.03.2019. However, the Principal CIT was not convinced with the replies given by the Assessee and therefore, the impugned order was passed by the Principal

KHYBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

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

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

disallowance u/s 36(1) (va) and the addition of‘Deferred tax provision’ amount of Rs.2,92,01,795/-. The entire addition was made during the processing of return u/s 143(1). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by challenging the order u/s 143(1). But assessee remained unsuccessful. Being dissatisfied assessee had challenged the order

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 36(1)(va) the rectification petition