SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRA L CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

M/S GLOBE AUTO ARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- III (4), JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

250/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained

M/S GLOBE AUTO PARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

250/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained

SWAMI GANGA GIRI JANTA GIRLS COLLEGE ,RAIKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result,the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar 4 I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2022, & ITA No. 715/Asr/2019 in Appeal no. 2/10002/18-19/CIT(A)/Jal dated 02.04.2019 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That the in the facts and circumstances of the case Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar gravelly erred in treating Appeal

SWAMI GANGA GIRI JANTA GIRLS COLLEGE,RAIKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar 4 I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2022, & ITA No. 715/Asr/2019 in Appeal no. 2/10002/18-19/CIT(A)/Jal dated 02.04.2019 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That the in the facts and circumstances of the case Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar gravelly erred in treating Appeal

SHRI SWAMI GANGA GIRI JANTA GIRLS COLLEGE,RAIKOOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

In the result,the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar 4 I.T.A. No. 87/Asr/2022, & ITA No. 715/Asr/2019 in Appeal no. 2/10002/18-19/CIT(A)/Jal dated 02.04.2019 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That the in the facts and circumstances of the case Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar gravelly erred in treating Appeal

RAHUL KHINDRI,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 37/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rahul Khindri, बनाम A.O., Cpc, 2157, Bazar Sirki Banda, Banglore Katra Dullo, Amritsar Indra Nagar, 143001 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Apfpk9150F अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That The Ld. C1T(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 31.07.2023 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Providing The Benefit Of Lower Tax As Per Section 115Bac Due To The Fact That Form 10 Ie Was Not Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.12.2021. 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 2

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, is bad in law as since the adoption of lower tax rate as per section 115BAC cannot be brought under the ambit of adjustment u/s 143(1) which covers 'arithmetical error, incorrect claim, disallowance

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

disallowances under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, in the relevant assessment years in terms of section 150(1) read with Explanation 2 of section 153 in respect of deletion of both amounts made in this order." The Assessing Officer relied upon the aforesaid observations to support the notices issued on the ground that there were finding/ directions given

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

250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). 2. In both the appeals the issue is identical and similar therefore for the sake of convenience and brevity have been taken into consideration simultaneously and facts of the ITA No.536/Asr/2017 shall be quoted in the order and result of the same shall mutatis mutandis apply

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

250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). 2. In both the appeals the issue is identical and similar therefore for the sake of convenience and brevity have been taken into consideration simultaneously and facts of the ITA No.536/Asr/2017 shall be quoted in the order and result of the same shall mutatis mutandis apply

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for A.Ys. 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16. The impugned orderswere originated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. Nos. 323 to 325/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2015-16 2 Ward-3(2) Ferozepur, (in brevity the AO). The orders were passed

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for A.Ys. 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16. The impugned orderswere originated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. Nos. 323 to 325/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2015-16 2 Ward-3(2) Ferozepur, (in brevity the AO). The orders were passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3, SRINAGAR vs. MEASAGE SAIFCO CEEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Department and CO of the Assesse is 23

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

6 Sep.2012 398963090/- 4322100/- 4322100/- 7 October, 420921397/- 4559982/- 4559982/- 2012 11 I.T.A. No. 451/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 6/Asr/2022 Assessment year, 2013-14 8 Nov. 2012 443109077/- 4800348/- 4800348/- 9 Dec. 412152856/- 4464989/- 4464989/ 2012 10 Jan.2013 408424273/- 4424596/- 4424596/- 11 Feb.2013 408137690/- 4421492/- 4421492/ 12 March, 363096397/- 3933544/- 3933544/- 2013 Total 52788126/- TABLE-“B” Sr. No. Description Amount

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

250(6) of the IT Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 3 & Others appeals different assessment years. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle-1, Jammu, order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act ( in brevity the Act). The ld. Counsel stated at the outset that

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

250(6) of the IT Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 3 & Others appeals different assessment years. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle-1, Jammu, order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act ( in brevity the Act). The ld. Counsel stated at the outset that

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

250(6) of the IT Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 3 & Others appeals different assessment years. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle-1, Jammu, order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act ( in brevity the Act). The ld. Counsel stated at the outset that

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

250(6) of the IT Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 3 & Others appeals different assessment years. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle-1, Jammu, order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act ( in brevity the Act). The ld. Counsel stated at the outset that

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

250(6) of the IT Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 3 & Others appeals different assessment years. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle-1, Jammu, order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act ( in brevity the Act). The ld. Counsel stated at the outset that