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

Disallowance of Interest paid by 1,96,496/- 6,89,994/- 3,53,381/- - the Trust on term loan by holding that the trust has made interest free advances to its Trustees. 21,72,081/- 24,61,984/- 9,51,368/- 9,24,414/- Total additions made under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, Income Returned

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

Disallowance of Interest paid by 1,96,496/- 6,89,994/- 3,53,381/- - the Trust on term loan by holding that the trust has made interest free advances to its Trustees. 21,72,081/- 24,61,984/- 9,51,368/- 9,24,414/- Total additions made under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, Income Returned

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

Disallowance of Interest paid by 1,96,496/- 6,89,994/- 3,53,381/- - the Trust on term loan by holding that the trust has made interest free advances to its Trustees. 21,72,081/- 24,61,984/- 9,51,368/- 9,24,414/- Total additions made under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, Income Returned

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

disallowance to the extent of Rs. 51,74,713/- on the ground that the underlying expenditure was not in the nature of a donation, but rather a mandatory contribution towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as specified under the Companies Act, 2013. That A.O. failed to appreciate that CSR contribution to the registered institutions is permissible under section 80G of Income

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

disallowance of expenditure being hit by the provisions of section 40A(3) has been thoroughly examined by the AO in course of original proceedings which is evident from the body of the original order dated 09/11/2016 where the AO has examined the same and has observed as follows: “2. The assessee firm engaged in the business of civil contractor

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

202 (P&H) One of the purposes of section 147 appears to us to ensure that a party cannot get away by willfully making a false statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say 'you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 3,97,500 claimed under section 80G of the Act, being 50% of the eligible amount of donations made during the relevant previous year. 10. That the AO erred in confirming the deemed income of Rs 12,50,000 under section 41(1). That the addition is made solely based on information available

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 143(3). Besides the case laws cited above for ground no. 1 86 2 which are also relevant, we would like to draw your attention to the following decisions: (a) ACIT vs. PACL India Ltd. - 36 CCH 516 (ITAT Delhi): The assessing officer has no jurisdiction to make fishing or roving inquiries. When certain incriminating material has been found

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 143(3). Besides the case laws cited above for ground no. 1 86 2 which are also relevant, we would like to draw your attention to the following decisions: (a) ACIT vs. PACL India Ltd. - 36 CCH 516 (ITAT Delhi): The assessing officer has no jurisdiction to make fishing or roving inquiries. When certain incriminating material has been found

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 143(3). Besides the case laws cited above for ground no. 1 86 2 which are also relevant, we would like to draw your attention to the following decisions: (a) ACIT vs. PACL India Ltd. - 36 CCH 516 (ITAT Delhi): The assessing officer has no jurisdiction to make fishing or roving inquiries. When certain incriminating material has been found