KAY SWITCGEARS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

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)

19 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 to the welfare fund right up to 1-4-2004, and who pays the contribution after 1-4-2004, would get the benefit of deduction under section 43-B of the Act." 44. There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second proviso to Section

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

19 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, AlomExtrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

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

19 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 these decisions also dealt with section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, AlomExtrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

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

disallowance of such payments is too harsh a punishment for delayed payments. Therefore, we recommend that the deduction for delayed payment of statutory liability relating to labour should be allowed in the year of payment like delayed taxes and interest." Based on the report, the Union introduced amendments to the IT Act, including an amendment to section 43B; the memorandum

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

disallowance of such payments is too harsh a punishment for delayed payments. Therefore, we recommend that the deduction for delayed payment of statutory liability relating to labour should be allowed in the year of payment like delayed taxes and interest." Based on the report, the Union introduced amendments to the IT Act, including an amendment to section 43B; the memorandum

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

disallowance of such payments is too harsh a punishment for delayed payments. Therefore, we recommend that the deduction for delayed payment of statutory liability relating to labour should be allowed in the year of payment like delayed taxes and interest." Based on the report, the Union introduced amendments to the IT Act, including an amendment to section 43B; the memorandum

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

section 263 ,as stated above, have still to be fulfilled for applying the explanation. The case laws holding so, as pointed out by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee are as under: i. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.164/Ahd/2018, decision dated 08.08.2018. ii. Asian Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2012) 78 ITR (Trib) 240 (Mumbai). iii. Citystar Ganguly Projects

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

Disallowance u/s 40A(7) was restricted to Rs. 19,52,569/- as an amount of Rs. 2,63,876/- was already added. 6.2 In the submission, the appellant has submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) confirming the similar addition made u/s 143(1) was challenged before the Hon’ble ITAT and that the matter has been restored back

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

19. Secondly, it may be noted that, in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] , the scheme of Section 43-B of the Act came to be examined. In that case, the question which arose for determination was, whether sales tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant

MESERS P.D SEKHSARIA TRADING COMPANY ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

disallowance of loss claimed on account of trading in commodity derivative of Rs.4,69,47,808/- by treating the transactions carried on by the assessee ITA No. 331/Asr./2018 4 SA No. 03/Asr./2019 P.D. Sekhsaria Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. between the period 21.05.2013 to 22.08.2013 as speculative transaction. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

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

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved