ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 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

24 & Others appeals as an investment. Thus, in view of this fact although income from dividend of Rs.1,18,21,078/- being exempt u/s 10(34) yet the appellant bank treating these investments as stock in trade has offered whole of the amount to tax and not claimed exemption on this income under respective section. Now, sec.l4A is applicable

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

24 & Others appeals as an investment. Thus, in view of this fact although income from dividend of Rs.1,18,21,078/- being exempt u/s 10(34) yet the appellant bank treating these investments as stock in trade has offered whole of the amount to tax and not claimed exemption on this income under respective section. Now, sec.l4A is applicable

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

24 & Others appeals as an investment. Thus, in view of this fact although income from dividend of Rs.1,18,21,078/- being exempt u/s 10(34) yet the appellant bank treating these investments as stock in trade has offered whole of the amount to tax and not claimed exemption on this income under respective section. Now, sec.l4A is applicable

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

24 & Others appeals as an investment. Thus, in view of this fact although income from dividend of Rs.1,18,21,078/- being exempt u/s 10(34) yet the appellant bank treating these investments as stock in trade has offered whole of the amount to tax and not claimed exemption on this income under respective section. Now, sec.l4A is applicable

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

In the result, the ground No

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

24 & Others appeals as an investment. Thus, in view of this fact although income from dividend of Rs.1,18,21,078/- being exempt u/s 10(34) yet the appellant bank treating these investments as stock in trade has offered whole of the amount to tax and not claimed exemption on this income under respective section. Now, sec.l4A is applicable

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

24 & Others appeals as an investment. Thus, in view of this fact although income from dividend of Rs.1,18,21,078/- being exempt u/s 10(34) yet the appellant bank treating these investments as stock in trade has offered whole of the amount to tax and not claimed exemption on this income under respective section. Now, sec.l4A is applicable

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

24 & Others appeals as an investment. Thus, in view of this fact although income from dividend of Rs.1,18,21,078/- being exempt u/s 10(34) yet the appellant bank treating these investments as stock in trade has offered whole of the amount to tax and not claimed exemption on this income under respective section. Now, sec.l4A is applicable

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. THE NAWANSHAHR CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, NAWANSHAHR

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 61/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Aaaat4125G The Dy. C. I. T. Vs. The Nawanshahr Central Co-Op. Circle-Ii, Jalandhar. Bank Ltd. Nawanshahr, Distt. Doaba. (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 ITA No. 61(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 1(a). That while deleting the above addition of Rs. 34,00,000/-Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts as well as in law by ignoring the fact that this disallowance was made by the A.O. in the light of provisions of section 36(l)(viia) of the Income

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BATHINDA vs. M/S THE MUKTSAR CENTRAL CO-OP.BANK LTD, MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

24,564/- claimed by assessee in its return of income, also disallowed u/s 40(a) of the Act for payment towards Income Tax and FBT total amount of Rs.11,65,690/- & the disallowance U/s 43B of the Act amount to Rs. 6,83,842/-. 3 Asstt CIT v. The Muktsar Central Coop. Bank Ltd. 4. Aggrieved the assessee filed