THE MUTHADA KHURD CO OPERATIVE AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

36 are as follows: “1. Statement of Facts - The assessee is a primary co-operative agricultural society (PACS) engaged in the business of providing banking & credit facilities to its members. The Appellant is being assessed to tax in the status of AOP. The Appellant filed its return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 on 14/10/2019 well within the extended period

RAVI KANT LUTHRA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 444/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ravi Kant Luthra, 1-Patel Vs. Adit, Cpc, Chowk Guru Bazar, Amritsar. Bengaluru. [Pan:-Alnpk7173Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Himanshu Gupta, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

36 are as follows: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) vide order u/s 250(6) dated 29.06.2024 has erred in confirming the action of the AO in not providing the benefit of lower tax as per section 115BAC due to I.T.A. No. 444/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2021-22 the fact that form 101E was not filed before the due date

SHRI NITIN AIMA,SHRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

VIA. Without prejudice to the above, it will not\nmake any difference if the benefit u/s 10AA is treated as an exemption or deduction\nprovided it is computed correctly and reduced from the income earned. This aspect\nhas been discussed below at page no. 13.\nThe authorities below have only confined themselves to the expression “derived\nfrom\" and \"attributable

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

36 Cost of Steam as per Table B 46,01,43,819/- (para 15.3) Margin 1,95,80,958/- 22. Based on the above, the AR explained that the finding of the TPO in treating the mark-up as zero/nil for the transfer of steam, without any comparable data and scientific analysis, is based on conjectures and surmises

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. UNIVERSAL BIOMASS ENERGY PVT LTD, GURUHARSAHAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

36 and at the outset, the Revenue has withdrawn the ground no. 3 which relates to the non-filing of audit report in Form 3-CA and 3-CD, which is not the matter in dispute here. As such, this ground was treated as withdrawn. 4. The other two grounds relates to the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 801A

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

36 are as under: “1. That the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) dated 31.05.2024 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

36 are as under: “1. That the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) dated 31.05.2024 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

36 are as follows: “1. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFSC Delhi, is against law & facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi has erred in law & facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.42,47,978/= to the returned income. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

36 are as follows: “1. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFSC Delhi, is against law & facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi has erred in law & facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.42,47,978/= to the returned income. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

36 are as follows: “1. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFSC Delhi, is against law & facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi has erred in law & facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.42,47,978/= to the returned income. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

36 are as follows: “1. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFSC Delhi, is against law & facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi has erred in law & facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.42,47,978/= to the returned income. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

36 has been subsequently revised and the revised grounds are as follows: “1. That the assessment order framed by the AO is void ab-initio having been framed without giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to respond to the statutory Show Cause Notice required to be issued to the assessee before framing the, assessment requiring the assessee to submit

SHRI ARSHAD MOHD MALIK,JAMMU vs. INMCVOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (4), UDHAMPUR

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

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

1 due to non-Attendance on that hearing. On the Other Hand the Ld. Has mentioned the Assessed Income in his Order I.T.A. No.168/Asr/2020 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dated 31/12/2019 at Rs. 16,42,500/- which is the Income of the Original Return filed by the assesseewithout any addition made by the A.O 5. That the Appellant craves/leaves