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

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

192/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts as well as law by ignoring the findings of the TPO and holding that LIBOR rate should be applied on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises

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

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

192/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts as well as law by ignoring the findings of the TPO and holding that LIBOR rate should be applied on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises

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

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

192/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts as well as law by ignoring the findings of the TPO and holding that LIBOR rate should be applied on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises

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

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

192/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts as well as law by ignoring the findings of the TPO and holding that LIBOR rate should be applied on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises

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

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

192/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts as well as law by ignoring the findings of the TPO and holding that LIBOR rate should be applied on interest advanced to Associate Enterprises

SH. ANUP KUMAR JAITLY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under subsection (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account

THE KOT RAM DASS COOP. THIRFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (4), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.86/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the the Act. In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.21,05,192

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

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.21,05,192

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.238/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the the Act. In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.21,05,192

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

disallowed by the ld AO. 6. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed by them to drive home their respective contentions. In order to answer the issue as to whether

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

disallowed by the ld AO. 6. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed by them to drive home their respective contentions. In order to answer the issue as to whether

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

disallowed by the ld AO. 6. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed by them to drive home their respective contentions. In order to answer the issue as to whether

VAAHO AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 ( 1 ) , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee related all grounds of ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenash. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed by the ld AO. 6. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed by them to drive home their respective contentions. In order to answer the issue as to whether

M/S TORRENT ROOFING SYSTEM,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

section 263 of Income Tax Act and confirmed by CIT (A) is bad in law, especially when there is no new material available with the Assessing officer and all the facts were duly verified by the Assessing officer while framing the assessment and same was brought to the knowledge of CIT(A), so the order passed by A.O and Confirmed

M/S ROYAL FURNISHERS,JAMMU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD - 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of Rs. 6,39,490/- made to the returned income on account of Provident Fund and ESI payments, made late but before filing the return u/s 139(1) may kindly be deleted. 7. The Ld. DR stands by the impugned order. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the addition was made

INDIAN TOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTRE,JALANDHAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1) , JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act and the Ld. first appellate authority sustained the same and the matter travelled to the Hon’ble Tribunal and the tribunal vide order dated 21st February, 2022, has decided the issue against 5 I.T.A. No. 262/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 the assessee on the ground that no expenditure has been incurred

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

192 (SC). The respectfully I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 24 & Others Group of cases observation of the ld. Counsel was that if the issues are debatable the preference should be given for assessee. 6.10. The ld. CIT DR mentioned that the vegetable Products Ltd. (supra) is related to tax payable and tax paid issue not a question of incriminating material

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

192 (SC). The respectfully I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 24 & Others Group of cases observation of the ld. Counsel was that if the issues are debatable the preference should be given for assessee. 6.10. The ld. CIT DR mentioned that the vegetable Products Ltd. (supra) is related to tax payable and tax paid issue not a question of incriminating material