THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

194(1) are not applicable. We also hold the exception provided in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and as per notification, the Jammu Development Authority is a creation of J&K Development Act and satisfies the condition at Entry No. 39 of the said notification and we hold that no tax was deductible on accrued interest

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

194(1) are not applicable. We also hold the exception provided in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and as per notification, the Jammu Development Authority is a creation of J&K Development Act and satisfies the condition at Entry No. 39 of the said notification and we hold that no tax was deductible on accrued interest

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

194(1) are not applicable. We also hold the exception provided in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and as per notification, the Jammu Development Authority is a creation of J&K Development Act and satisfies the condition at Entry No. 39 of the said notification and we hold that no tax was deductible on accrued interest

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

194(1) are not applicable. We also hold the exception provided in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and as per notification, the Jammu Development Authority is a creation of J&K Development Act and satisfies the condition at Entry No. 39 of the said notification and we hold that no tax was deductible on accrued interest

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

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

194(1) are not applicable. We also hold the exception provided in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and as per notification, the Jammu Development Authority is a creation of J&K Development Act and satisfies the condition at Entry No. 39 of the said notification and we hold that no tax was deductible on accrued interest

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

disallowed by the AO. 6.1. It is true that, the Appellant has formed the AOP and participated in the tender for construction of warehouse, hence, the intention/object with which the AOP was formed was to do business. The term business is defined under section 2(13) of the Act, which talks about adventure or concern in the nature of trade

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

disallowed by the AO. 6.1. It is true that, the Appellant has formed the AOP and participated in the tender for construction of warehouse, hence, the intention/object with which the AOP was formed was to do business. The term business is defined under section 2(13) of the Act, which talks about adventure or concern in the nature of trade

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 298/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan: Aaact6167G Dy. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. The Jammu & Kashmir Circle-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bank Ltd., Corporate Head Bhawan, Railhead Complex, Quarters, M. A. Road, Jammu. Srinagar. (Appellant) (Respondent)

194(1) are not applicable. We also hold that Exception provided in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and as per notification, the Jammu Development Authority is a creation of J & K Development Act and satisfies the condition at Entry No.39 of the said notification and we hold that no tax was deductible on accrued interest on FDRs

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

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

disallowed under section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel argued & placed the fact that assessee having factory in remote area in village Bholuwal, where no banking facility is available. In additional evidence the assessee has filed Certificate of Panchayat with English version & Affidavit of director of company which are enclosed as Page 31-33 of Paper book. By the additional evidence

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

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

disallowed under section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel argued & placed the fact that assessee having factory in remote area in village Bholuwal, where no banking facility is available. In additional evidence the assessee has filed Certificate of Panchayat with English version & Affidavit of director of company which are enclosed as Page 31-33 of Paper book. By the additional evidence

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 40A(3), which disallowance cannot be said to be found wanting or not properly applied on the ground of having satisfactorily explained the source of cash with the assessee. The AO, accordingly, has not made any enquiry in the matter. This, it may be noted, is in the same manner as the law does not oblige

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

disallowance on account of depreciation (u/s. 32(1)) and interest (u s. 361 (iii)) shall not survive in view of the estimation of the net profit rate. That leaves us with the addition u/s. 68 qua a secured loan s. Though the same could be made in principal, and we do not agree with the Id. CIT(A) that

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

disallowance on account of depreciation (u/s. 32(1)) and interest (u s. 361 (iii)) shall not survive in view of the estimation of the net profit rate. That leaves us with the addition u/s. 68 qua a secured loan s. Though the same could be made in principal, and we do not agree with the Id. CIT(A) that

SH. CHANDER MOHAN MEHRA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1),, AMRITSAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

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

194(SC): It was held- Section 36(i)(iii) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be read on its own terms. It is a code by itself. It makes no distinction between money borrowed to acquire a capital asset or a revenue asset. All that the section requires is that the assesse must borrow capital and the purpose

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

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

disallowing the special deduction was not valid." 9. The Hon,ble Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Khushi Ram & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has decided similar issue wherein the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs. 80 lacs during the course of survey on account of building renovation, office equipment and sundry receivables and claimed set off of unabsorbed losses

SHRI OM PARKASH LEGAL HEIAR SMT PUSHPA VERMA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

194 (SC). The ld. counsel, after seeking time, which was allowed, would respond by relying on the decision in CIT v. Aggarwal Engineering Co. [2008] 302 ITR 246 (P&H), to the effect that once the net profit rate is applied for estimating income, no separate addition on account of cash credit, or for payment of purchases, could be made

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

Disallowed the expanses to the tune of Rs 676050/- 25% of the total royalty paid in view of the Judgment of M/s Southern Switch Gear Ltd (232 ITR 359) But the facts of our case are entirety different from the facts of the case law relied on by the Pr CIT and A.O. We submitted many case law decided

GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and required to be capitalised with the cost of immovable properties. Therefore an addition of Rs. 41,44,372/- being 50% of the interest claimed is hereby added of total income of the assessee .…….” Sir, in this regard it submitted as under: 1. That modus operandi of assessee’s business model is that