THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section. The expenditure for purchasing stock- in-trade is one of such outgoings. The value of the stock-in-trade has to be taken into account while determining the gross profits under s. 28 on principles of commercial accounting. The payments made for purchases would also be covered by the word "expenditure" and such payments can be disallowed if they

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

237 ITR 165(1999) has held:- ------------- b) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hero Cycles Pvt .ltd. ETC. ETC. Supreme Court of India 142 CTR (SC) 122 ……………………. c) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHIMA BROS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA (1995) 123 CTR (Ker) 253 : (1995) 214 ITR 302 (Ker) ………………. That without prejudice to our submission that provisions of section 154/155

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

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

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

237 ITR 570 wherein it was held while dealing with section 69 that the ITO is not obliged to treat the unexplained investment as income in each and every case. Where the assessee was a young land and could not have earned the income in question, the deletion of addition by the IT A T was justified. In this case

M/S. BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

237 CTR 464 (Del.) " Birla Soft (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2011) 136 TTJ 505 (Del.-ITAT) " Good Year India Ltd. Vs ITO (2000) 73 ITD 189 (Del. ITAT) " ITO Vs Ethno Financial Research (P.) Ltd. (2010) 36 SOT 207 (Del. ITAT) " ACIT Vs Amtek Auto Ltd. (2006) 112 TTJ 455 ( Del. ITAT) " Om Prakash Joshi

M/S BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

237 CTR 464 (Del.) " Birla Soft (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2011) 136 TTJ 505 (Del.-ITAT) " Good Year India Ltd. Vs ITO (2000) 73 ITD 189 (Del. ITAT) " ITO Vs Ethno Financial Research (P.) Ltd. (2010) 36 SOT 207 (Del. ITAT) " ACIT Vs Amtek Auto Ltd. (2006) 112 TTJ 455 ( Del. ITAT) " Om Prakash Joshi

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR vs. HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP. BANK LTD., HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

237/- on account of losses of fraud committed at main branch, Hoshiarpur and Rs.2,58,57,709/- on account of contra entry of interest not decided by the CIT(Appeal). The Ld. counsel submitted that the CIT(Appeal) has allowed partly appeal in respect of disallowance of Rs.6,0075,946/- for provision made against standard loans of Rs.25 lacs

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HOSHIARPUR vs. THE HOSIARPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

237/- on account of losses of fraud committed at main branch, Hoshiarpur and Rs.2,58,57,709/- on account of contra entry of interest not decided by the CIT(Appeal). The Ld. counsel submitted that the CIT(Appeal) has allowed partly appeal in respect of disallowance of Rs.6,0075,946/- for provision made against standard loans of Rs.25 lacs

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP. BANK LTD.,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

237/- on account of losses of fraud committed at main branch, Hoshiarpur and Rs.2,58,57,709/- on account of contra entry of interest not decided by the CIT(Appeal). The Ld. counsel submitted that the CIT(Appeal) has allowed partly appeal in respect of disallowance of Rs.6,0075,946/- for provision made against standard loans of Rs.25 lacs

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP. BANK LTD,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

237/- on account of losses of fraud committed at main branch, Hoshiarpur and Rs.2,58,57,709/- on account of contra entry of interest not decided by the CIT(Appeal). The Ld. counsel submitted that the CIT(Appeal) has allowed partly appeal in respect of disallowance of Rs.6,0075,946/- for provision made against standard loans of Rs.25 lacs

UNIVERSAL BIOMASS ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUHARSAHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

disallowance u/s 143(1), because it is not as per provisions of law. 7.2 Secondly, he also submitted that on the face of the assessment order (paragraph – 1) it is categorically stated that there are two issues for which the case is selected for complete scrutiny. Firstly on account of verification of investments I.T.A. No. 267/Asr/2024 6 Assessment Year

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

section 147 and also on the ground that the sanction granted by the JCIT is not in accordance of mandate of law. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Rani Agarwal V. ITO. Copy at pages 1-7 of compendium. 5 6. From the reasons recorded it can be seen that just

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S KHOSLA INTERNATIONAL, BATALA

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30.03.2014 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09. 2. The appeal challenges the impugned order on the twin aspects on which the ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment, i.e., (i) that the reopening is invalid as a notice u/s. 148(1), issued