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

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

67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at A-12, Focal Point, Jalandhar. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act at the same income vide order dated 21.03.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed that International Transactions of the assessee company with

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

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

67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at A-12, Focal Point, Jalandhar. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act at the same income vide order dated 21.03.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed that International Transactions of the assessee company with

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

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

67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at A-12, Focal Point, Jalandhar. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act at the same income vide order dated 21.03.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed that International Transactions of the assessee company with

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

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

67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at A-12, Focal Point, Jalandhar. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act at the same income vide order dated 21.03.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed that International Transactions of the assessee company with

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

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

67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at A-12, Focal Point, Jalandhar. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act at the same income vide order dated 21.03.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed that International Transactions of the assessee company with

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

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

67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at A-12, Focal Point, Jalandhar. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act at the same income vide order dated 21.03.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed that International Transactions of the assessee company with

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

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

67,748/- on the profits of Unit-11 (factory premises) of the assessee company situated at A-12, Focal Point, Jalandhar. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act at the same income vide order dated 21.03.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed that International Transactions of the assessee company with

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

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

67,901/-. There was difference in valuation of building also, building as per books amounted to Rs. 51,23,155/- whereas as per valuation report it amounted to Rs.1,40,00,000/- giving difference of Rs. 88,76,845/-. To buy peace of mind & to avoid litigation with the department, Assessee made surrender of Rs. 1

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

67 1- Name of the assessee Madan Lai, S/o Bihari Lai 2- Address of the assessee Model Town, Shahkot. 3- PAN/GIR ABFPL4650B 4- Ward/Circle Central Circle-I, Jalandhar 5- Status Individual 6- Method of accounting Mercantile 7- Resident Whether resident/Resident but not ordinarily resident/Non- resident 8- Nature of Business Income from Business/ Profession. 9- Asstt. Year

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

1,67,11,295/-, as the AO has already made an addition in respect of the difference in sales of power and steam separately, amounting to Rs. 6,66,54,028/-. 27 I.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 47. The disallowance of deduction under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other

SHRI SUKHJINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. PRINICPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of entire amount of Rs. 12,38,000/- is not justified. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee is not having any income except agriculture and part of the bank interest only. Thus there is no question of any other income except agriculture which the A.O. has rightly accepted in view of the affidavit dated 29.10.2019 furnish before

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD II(4), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

67,796 for the period 1st May, 1988, to 31st March, 1989, the assessee-company capitalized Rs. 34,88,666 and debited Rs 1,26,79,130 in the P&L a/c. This amount was also not paid due to shortage of funds. The assessee-company however, preferred the request before 31st March, 1989, to the financial institutions to defer

SH. VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL, PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

67,796 for the period 1st May, 1988, to 31st March, 1989, the assessee-company capitalized Rs. 34,88,666 and debited Rs 1,26,79,130 in the P&L a/c. This amount was also not paid due to shortage of funds. The assessee-company however, preferred the request before 31st March, 1989, to the financial institutions to defer

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

disallowed 45% of the total expenses debited to the profit and loss account. 33. The aforesaid justification has not been controverted before us nor any infirmity worth its name pointed out by the Ld.Pr.CIT. On the contrary, we find, the Ld.Pr.CIT has tried to negate the claim of expenses against the aforestated incomes by stating that: a) Since the assessee

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

section 147 and also on the ground that the sanction granted by the JCIT is not in accordance of mandate of law. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Rani Agarwal V. ITO. Copy at pages 1-7 of compendium. 5 6. From the reasons recorded it can be seen that just

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 298/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan: Aaact6167G Dy. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. The Jammu & Kashmir Circle-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bank Ltd., Corporate Head Bhawan, Railhead Complex, Quarters, M. A. Road, Jammu. Srinagar. (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 the bank had shown that the investments, from which income had been earned, stood treated as stock in trade rather than investment; that the assessee had not claimed exemption on this income; that as such, the assessee had offered its income and had not considered the income to be part of its total income; that therefore, section