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)

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

M/S RAMPA MOTOR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (5), JALANDHAR

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

50,699/- 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

PUJA ENTERPRISES ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR

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

50,699/- 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

MESERS CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year: 2011-12

section 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The disallowance is bad in law and needs to be deleted. (Not Pressed) ITA N0.129/Asr/ 2018 (A.Y.2011-12) 3 M/s. Construction Engineers Vs. ACIT 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by making addition of Rs.20,26,445/- u/s 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

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

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 (1) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

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

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

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

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

SHRI SACHIN KAPUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

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

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

M/S. RAMCO ENGG WORKS ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

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

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

SHRI GULZAR SINGH. GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

section 271(1) (c) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance of shop expenses and cash discount is unjustified and liable to be deleted. 7. The Ld. Addl. CIT (DR) stands by the impugned orders. However, he has admitted the fact that the disallowance of shop expenses was on estimate basis@ 50

SHRI GULZAR SINGH , GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

section 271(1) (c) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance of shop expenses and cash discount is unjustified and liable to be deleted. 7. The Ld. Addl. CIT (DR) stands by the impugned orders. However, he has admitted the fact that the disallowance of shop expenses was on estimate basis@ 50

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

disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. In other words, Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. 6. The Hon’ble Madras High Court also dealt with the identical issue in the case of CIT, Central 1, Chennai vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com

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

disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. In other words, Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. 6. The Hon’ble Madras High Court also dealt with the identical issue in the case of CIT, Central 1, Chennai vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowance, on account of any expenditure being excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value, shall be made in respect of a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, if such transaction is at arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F.] (b) The persons referred to in clause (a) are the following

MESERS BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowance, on account of any expenditure being excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value, shall be made in respect of a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, if such transaction is at arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F.] (b) The persons referred to in clause (a) are the following

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. M/S SURJIT SINGH AND CO, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

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

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax to the extent of Rs. 1,02,52,935/- on account of claim of payment of site charges/labour charges and, therefore, not allowable as deduction. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal.” 4. Briefly the facts are that the assessee is a civil contractor engaged in constructing

SATNAM SINGH MEMORIAL TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-III(2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 478/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

50% of the expenses claimed for which no corresponding vouchers/documents could be produced. Accordingly, I confirm the disallowance of Rs. 9,01,699 made by the AO under this head.’ (emphasis, supplied) Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal, raising the following grounds: 3 Satnam Singh Memorial Trust v. ITO ‘1. That no notice of demand valid

ROYAL FURNISHER ,JAMMU vs. ASSESING OFFICER WARD- 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

disallowed under section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 ** ** ** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess