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)

47. Likewise, this court underlined the rule, regarding interpretation of taxing statutes, in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana [2014] 6 SCC 444. Recently, in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd. [2020] 116 taxmann.com 378/273 Taxman 189/425 ITR 1 (SC)/2020 (5) SCC 274 this court examined, and repelled a challenge to the constitutionality of section 43B, especially the provision

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

47. Likewise, this court underlined the rule, regarding interpretation of taxing statutes, in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana [2014] 6 SCC 444. Recently, in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd. [2020] 116 taxmann.com 378/273 Taxman 189/425 ITR 1 (SC)/2020 (5) SCC 274 this court examined, and repelled a challenge to the constitutionality of section 43B, especially the provision

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

47. Likewise, this court underlined the rule, regarding interpretation of taxing statutes, in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana [2014] 6 SCC 444. Recently, in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd. [2020] 116 taxmann.com 378/273 Taxman 189/425 ITR 1 (SC)/2020 (5) SCC 274 this court examined, and repelled a challenge to the constitutionality of section 43B, especially the provision

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

47. Likewise, this court underlined the rule, regarding interpretation of taxing statutes, in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana [2014] 6 SCC 444. Recently, in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd. [2020] 116 taxmann.com 378/273 Taxman 189/425 ITR 1 (SC)/2020 (5) SCC 274 this court examined, and repelled a challenge to the constitutionality of section 43B, especially the provision

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

47. Likewise, this court underlined the rule, regarding interpretation of taxing statutes, in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana [2014] 6 SCC 444. Recently, in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd. [2020] 116 taxmann.com 378/273 Taxman 189/425 ITR 1 (SC)/2020 (5) SCC 274 this court examined, and repelled a challenge to the constitutionality of section 43B, especially the provision

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

47. Likewise, this court underlined the rule, regarding interpretation of taxing statutes, in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana [2014] 6 SCC 444. Recently, in Union of India v. Exide Industries Ltd. [2020] 116 taxmann.com 378/273 Taxman 189/425 ITR 1 (SC)/2020 (5) SCC 274 this court examined, and repelled a challenge to the constitutionality of section 43B, especially the provision

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

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

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

Section 2 of Forward Contract Regulation Act, 1952 since 20-11-2003. 5. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the retrospective amendment brought in Sec 43(5)(e) by the Finance (No.2) Act 2014 is not applicable to the appellant. It is well established that a provision cannot be read retrospectively to divest assessee

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

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

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

v) Expenditure has not been incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. ……………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………….. In the assessee’ case the nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income earned has not been shown. Even if a liberal view is taken that the expenses was incurred for dealing with the residual aspects of the MSF division which

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

disallowances and cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000 in a single day required detailed verification - Tribunal observed that during assessment proceedings, assessee submitted cash payment register and explained each item of proposed addition as per show cause notice of Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer, after going through cash payment register and explanation of each item, did not make

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

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

v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus is on 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

v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus is on 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

v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus is on the assessing

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

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

v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus is on the assessing

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

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

v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus is on the assessing

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

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

v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus is on the assessing

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

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

v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus is on the assessing