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

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

section 36(1) (viia), which admits deduction at seven and a half per cent. of the total income (before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA), with the said limit being not breached in the instant case. 8. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. We find no infirmity in the impugned order

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

section 36(1) (viia), which admits deduction at seven and a half per cent. of the total income (before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA), with the said limit being not breached in the instant case. 8. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. We find no infirmity in the impugned order

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

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

section 36(1) (viia), which admits deduction at seven and a half per cent. of the total income (before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA), with the said limit being not breached in the instant case. 8. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. We find no infirmity in the impugned order

SHRI MADAL LAL,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

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

via phone /fax, date of receipt of physical letter by post is immaterial. In our considered opinion, the requirement of Section 153D is clear and unambiguous, which requires prior approval of the Addl. CIT before passing the order by the Assessing Officer. For the ready reference, we are reproducing herein below Section 153D of the Income Tax Act which provides

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

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,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

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

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