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

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

58,45,829/- after claiming deduction under section 80IB of the Act at Rs.56,37,834/- on the profits of the Unit-1 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at G.T. Road, Suranussi, Jalandhar and under section 10B of the Act at Rs.5,09,67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated

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

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

58,45,829/- after claiming deduction under section 80IB of the Act at Rs.56,37,834/- on the profits of the Unit-1 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at G.T. Road, Suranussi, Jalandhar and under section 10B of the Act at Rs.5,09,67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated

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

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

58,45,829/- after claiming deduction under section 80IB of the Act at Rs.56,37,834/- on the profits of the Unit-1 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at G.T. Road, Suranussi, Jalandhar and under section 10B of the Act at Rs.5,09,67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

58,45,829/- after claiming deduction under section 80IB of the Act at Rs.56,37,834/- on the profits of the Unit-1 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at G.T. Road, Suranussi, Jalandhar and under section 10B of the Act at Rs.5,09,67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated

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

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

58,45,829/- after claiming deduction under section 80IB of the Act at Rs.56,37,834/- on the profits of the Unit-1 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at G.T. Road, Suranussi, Jalandhar and under section 10B of the Act at Rs.5,09,67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -IV, KAPURTHALA vs. M/S PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK, KAPURTHALA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

disallowance of the interest expenditure of Rs. 2,45,58,987/- paid by the assessee bank on the fixed deposits of PTU is concerned, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that as PTU had submitted letters claiming that as its income was exempt under Sec. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the IT Act, therefore

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 10.03.2015 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee-individual, dealing businesses material (viz., iron/steel, cement, timber, etc.) as well as a partner in a firm running a hotel, entered into an Agreement to purchase 137 Kanals

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58

MESERS SPEED SURYA MOVIES ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the disallowance has to be restricted to the tune of 30% in respect of the expenses on which TDS was not deducted by the assessee. Such amendment was held as retrospective by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of “Muradul Haque vs. ITO”, reported in 184 ITD 58