M/S NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,FAZILKA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal i

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. In other words, Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. 6. The Hon’ble Madras High Court also dealt with the identical issue in the case of CIT, Central 1, Chennai vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com

LALLY MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance u/s. 14A qua the investment in shares in Gautam Iron Mills Pvt. Ltd. afresh, and in light of the Board Circular 5/2014 (para 4 of the impugned order). Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Our first observation in the matter is a complete absence

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. SH. DARSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN, PATHANKOT

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 566(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Adjpm7623B

1)(g) of the Constitution, is for a constitutional Court 9 ITA No.566 (Asr)/2016(AY 2013-14) Asst. CIT v Darshan Kumar Mahajan to examine and declare in appropriate proceedings before it. Given the constitutionality of the provision, the same has to be read on its terms, even as the explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in IPCA

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

221, 222 & 226/Asr/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2011-12 Smt. Bharti Singh Vs. ACIT, Circle (3), G. T. Road -14, Amritsar Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar Punjab- 143 001 [PAN: BASPS2356E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Lakshay Bansal, CA Sh. Manoj Aggarwal, Sr. DR : Respondent by Date of Hearing : 14.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2023 ORDER

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

221, 222 & 226/Asr/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2011-12 Smt. Bharti Singh Vs. ACIT, Circle (3), G. T. Road -14, Amritsar Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar Punjab- 143 001 [PAN: BASPS2356E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Lakshay Bansal, CA Sh. Manoj Aggarwal, Sr. DR : Respondent by Date of Hearing : 14.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2023 ORDER

SMT. BHARTI SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

221, 222 & 226/Asr/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2011-12 Smt. Bharti Singh Vs. ACIT, Circle (3), G. T. Road -14, Amritsar Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar Punjab- 143 001 [PAN: BASPS2356E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Lakshay Bansal, CA Sh. Manoj Aggarwal, Sr. DR : Respondent by Date of Hearing : 14.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2023 ORDER

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

1 Jammu in ITA no 124/ASR/2011 in which the Hon'ble Bench while relying on the decision M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals in ITA No I.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 22 Assessment Year: 2013-14 184/Asr/2011 dated 11.06.2010 for the assessment year 2005 -06 have held that deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, is allowable on the amount of enhanced income in view

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

221 (Punjab & Haryana). It has been concluded and adjudicated in thesecases that in the event where any assessee fails to establish the sales as a transaction, thereafter any amount found credited in the books of account of the assessee would be treated as unexplained cash credit. In the present case, the appellant has not come forward to substantiate the claim

SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

1 of the assessment order]. Copy of the affidavits is at page no. 14 to 16 of the paper book. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to how being a commission agent advance had been received from agriculturists whereas in general practice, the commission agent gives advance to the agriculturists [1st para at page