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

e) Nipun Jain Vs. DCIT, ITA:- 71&72/Asr/2021 order dated 09.11.2021 f) M/s New Light Facility Management Vs. DCIT ITA:- 176&177/Asr/2021 order dated 22.12.2021 The counsel also submitted that all the payments have been made before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act and as such payment has been

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

e) Nipun Jain Vs. DCIT, ITA:- 71&72/Asr/2021 order dated 09.11.2021 f) M/s New Light Facility Management Vs. DCIT ITA:- 176&177/Asr/2021 order dated 22.12.2021 The counsel also submitted that all the payments have been made before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act and as such payment has been

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

e) Nipun Jain Vs. DCIT, ITA:- 71&72/Asr/2021 order dated 09.11.2021 f) M/s New Light Facility Management Vs. DCIT ITA:- 176&177/Asr/2021 order dated 22.12.2021 The counsel also submitted that all the payments have been made before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act and as such payment has been

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

e- Kashmir College of Educational v. ITO Exemption claimed u/s 10(23C) 19,75,585/- 17,71,990/- 5,97,987/- 9,24,414/- (iiiad) Balance Income. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Total Receipts 53,18,510/- 58,93,074/- 28,84,749/- 37,30,202/- [Refer [Refer Page [Refer Page [Refer Page Page No.20 of the No.18 of the No.24

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

e- Kashmir College of Educational v. ITO Exemption claimed u/s 10(23C) 19,75,585/- 17,71,990/- 5,97,987/- 9,24,414/- (iiiad) Balance Income. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Total Receipts 53,18,510/- 58,93,074/- 28,84,749/- 37,30,202/- [Refer [Refer Page [Refer Page [Refer Page Page No.20 of the No.18 of the No.24

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

e- Kashmir College of Educational v. ITO Exemption claimed u/s 10(23C) 19,75,585/- 17,71,990/- 5,97,987/- 9,24,414/- (iiiad) Balance Income. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Total Receipts 53,18,510/- 58,93,074/- 28,84,749/- 37,30,202/- [Refer [Refer Page [Refer Page [Refer Page Page No.20 of the No.18 of the No.24

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

e- Kashmir College of Educational v. ITO Exemption claimed u/s 10(23C) 19,75,585/- 17,71,990/- 5,97,987/- 9,24,414/- (iiiad) Balance Income. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Total Receipts 53,18,510/- 58,93,074/- 28,84,749/- 37,30,202/- [Refer [Refer Page [Refer Page [Refer Page Page No.20 of the No.18 of the No.24

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY 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)

e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of section 43B was explained by this court

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)

e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of section 43B was explained by this court

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)

e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of section 43B was explained by this court

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

e-filed his Return of Income on 30-09-2019 declaring a total income of Rs.2,99,46,511/-. The return was processed by CPC, Bengaluru determining the total income at Rs.3,05,83,400/-. The assessee had paid employee share of ESI and PF on dates after the due dates prescribed 3 I.T.A. Nos. 25 & 26/Asr/2023 Karnail Singh

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

e-filed his Return of Income on 30-09-2019 declaring a total income of Rs.2,99,46,511/-. The return was processed by CPC, Bengaluru determining the total income at Rs.3,05,83,400/-. The assessee had paid employee share of ESI and PF on dates after the due dates prescribed 3 I.T.A. Nos. 25 & 26/Asr/2023 Karnail Singh

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

e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of section 43B was explained by this court

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

e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of section 43B was explained by this court

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

e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of section 43B was explained by this court

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

e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of section 43B was explained by this court

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

e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." I.T.A. No.192/Asr/2022 12 Assessment Year: 2018-19 42. The rationale for introduction of section

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

2. CIT Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills (1966) 59 ITR 152 3. CIT Vs. Mcleod & Co.,(1993) 203 ITR 290 (Cal) 4) CIT Vs. Modi Industries Limited,(1994) 210 ITR 1 (Del)(FB) 5) CIT Vs. New India Maritime Agencies (1994) 207 ITR 392(Mad) 22. It has been consistently held by courts in the aforestated decisions that where

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

e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004- 2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of section 43B was explained by this court