ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY 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)

29 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 '143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely: — (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim

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)

29 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 '143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely: — (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim

M. K HOTEL & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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)

29 A.Ys.: 2019-20 & 2020-21 '143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely: — (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim

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

29 Assessment Year: 2018-19 disallowance under sub-clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a), has used the expression 'indicated

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

29 which states that the income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

29 which states that the income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

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

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

29,930/-. Both the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO did not find any specific lacunae against the expenses paid for foreign travel. So, the addition of Rs. 65,000/- modified by the ld CIT(A) is deleted. In this point ground no. 4 of the assessee is allowed. 6. Ground No. 5 During the assessment proceedings

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

section u/s 36(i)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 22. Next ground is regarding adhoc disallowance of 10% out of the expenses claimed under heads telephone, tour and travelling, general/miscellaneous expense, entertainment, vehicle repairing amounting to Rs 431,620/- on the ground that some bills of the above expenses were not available and were not properly vouched

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

section 36(l)(viia) of the Act as against allowable deduction at Rs 757,83,01,533/-. Even after disallowing the claim of Rs.41,33,61,283/ in respect of I/C Bari Brahamna, the eligible claim of deduction will be at Rs 716,49,40,250/- as against which the appellant bank has claimed deduction amounting

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

section 36(l)(viia) of the Act as against allowable deduction at Rs 757,83,01,533/-. Even after disallowing the claim of Rs.41,33,61,283/ in respect of I/C Bari Brahamna, the eligible claim of deduction will be at Rs 716,49,40,250/- as against which the appellant bank has claimed deduction amounting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

section 36(l)(viia) of the Act as against allowable deduction at Rs 757,83,01,533/-. Even after disallowing the claim of Rs.41,33,61,283/ in respect of I/C Bari Brahamna, the eligible claim of deduction will be at Rs 716,49,40,250/- as against which the appellant bank has claimed deduction amounting

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

section 36(l)(viia) of the Act as against allowable deduction at Rs 757,83,01,533/-. Even after disallowing the claim of Rs.41,33,61,283/ in respect of I/C Bari Brahamna, the eligible claim of deduction will be at Rs 716,49,40,250/- as against which the appellant bank has claimed deduction amounting

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

section 36(l)(viia) of the Act as against allowable deduction at Rs 757,83,01,533/-. Even after disallowing the claim of Rs.41,33,61,283/ in respect of I/C Bari Brahamna, the eligible claim of deduction will be at Rs 716,49,40,250/- as against which the appellant bank has claimed deduction amounting

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

section 36(l)(viia) of the Act as against allowable deduction at Rs 757,83,01,533/-. Even after disallowing the claim of Rs.41,33,61,283/ in respect of I/C Bari Brahamna, the eligible claim of deduction will be at Rs 716,49,40,250/- as against which the appellant bank has claimed deduction amounting

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

section 36(l)(viia) of the Act as against allowable deduction at Rs 757,83,01,533/-. Even after disallowing the claim of Rs.41,33,61,283/ in respect of I/C Bari Brahamna, the eligible claim of deduction will be at Rs 716,49,40,250/- as against which the appellant bank has claimed deduction amounting

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COPREATIVE -BANK,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee has not pressed, ground no-3 is

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

section 36(1)(viia), while the AO did not allow deduction to the tune of Rs. 80 lac which stood allowed by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) upheld disallowance of the deduction to tune of Rs.64,29

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

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

disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act following the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgement in “Liberty India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax”, (2009) 9 SCC 328: (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) and “Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Sterling Foods”, Mangalore (1999) 4 SCC 98, rendered on the issue of claim of deduction on export

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

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

disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act following the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgement in “Liberty India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax”, (2009) 9 SCC 328: (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) and “Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Sterling Foods”, Mangalore (1999) 4 SCC 98, rendered on the issue of claim of deduction on export