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

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

197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed

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

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

197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed

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

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

197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed

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

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

197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed

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

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

197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed

M/S. BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

section 80IB makes it reasonable for the Assessing Officer to make suitable disallowance under this head. In the circumstances, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is upheld being a reasonable estimate.” 11. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities ITA No. 354/Asr./2014 14 Bright Enterprises

M/S BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

section 80IB makes it reasonable for the Assessing Officer to make suitable disallowance under this head. In the circumstances, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is upheld being a reasonable estimate.” 11. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities ITA No. 354/Asr./2014 14 Bright Enterprises

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -IV, KAPURTHALA vs. M/S PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK, KAPURTHALA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

197 of the IT Act, therefore, the lower authorities had rightly disallowed the said amount under Sec. P a g e | 10 ITA No. 784 & 731/Asr./2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Punjab Gramin Bank Vs. DCIT & DCIT Vs. Punjab Gramin Bank 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. Insofar the addition of Rs. 1,99,19,242/- made

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

disallowed as an expenditure for the year in which it is incurred, contracting a ‘liability’ in its respect and, even otherwise, the ‘benefit’ in its respect arising in that year itself, even as explained in Jain Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra). In fact, in the facts of the present case, the ld. CIT(A) has, in view of the assessee having

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAMMU vs. M/S J. K. MINT INDUSTRIES, BARI BRAHMANA

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

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

disallowed the claim of deduction made by the assessee u/s. 80IB of the Income tax Act on the ground that it has not fulfilled the prescribed conditions under section 80IB of the Act. 4 Asstt. CIT v. J.K. Mint Industries 4. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assesse filed appeal before the CIT(A) who has granted relief by deleting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were indulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during Investigation, Impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were to be deleted

SHRI AMRIK SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 (1), AMRITSAR

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

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

disallowance of interest may not be made u/s 36(l)(iii) on account of interest free advances given. The AR has argued that the advances were given out of interest free funds available with the assessee and to substantiate his claim, the AR made calculations of the net profit earned during the year to show that the internal accruals

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

disallowance cannot be sustained without any further enquiry and confrontation to the appellant. Even though no separate addition has been made, therefore from the computation of income viewpoint this ground of appeal is infructuous and for statistical purposes stated to be dismissed.” 3.3. In argument the ld. Counsel, Mr. Sehgal mentioned that in the same paragraph

KUNDAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHI CHOWK, SADAR BAZAR, MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

197 (Amritsar). It has been reported as under "Where Assessing Officer received AIR Information that assessee had deposited substantial amount of cash in bank account and issued reopening notice, since AlR information relied upon was incorrect and Assessing Officer failed to verify amount of cash deposited in bank from copies of bank statements duly furnished by assessee during course

SH. JASBIR SINGH S/O TEK CHAND,,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 600/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 143(3) read with sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30.11.2010 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08. 2. The appeal being time-barred, the first issue is if the delay could be condoned, and the appeal admitted. The delay is explained as on account of non- receipt of the appellate order