KAY SWITCGEARS INDIA 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 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant bank under section 36(l)(viia) of the Act in respect of its Bari Brahmana Brach is, therefore, upheld for statistical purposes as the Assessing Officer has not made any separate addition on this issue to the returned income of the appellant bank since the appellant bank has claimed deduction of Rs.236,69

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant bank under section 36(l)(viia) of the Act in respect of its Bari Brahmana Brach is, therefore, upheld for statistical purposes as the Assessing Officer has not made any separate addition on this issue to the returned income of the appellant bank since the appellant bank has claimed deduction of Rs.236,69

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

In the result, the ground No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant bank under section 36(l)(viia) of the Act in respect of its Bari Brahmana Brach is, therefore, upheld for statistical purposes as the Assessing Officer has not made any separate addition on this issue to the returned income of the appellant bank since the appellant bank has claimed deduction of Rs.236,69

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

In the result, the ground No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant bank under section 36(l)(viia) of the Act in respect of its Bari Brahmana Brach is, therefore, upheld for statistical purposes as the Assessing Officer has not made any separate addition on this issue to the returned income of the appellant bank since the appellant bank has claimed deduction of Rs.236,69

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant bank under section 36(l)(viia) of the Act in respect of its Bari Brahmana Brach is, therefore, upheld for statistical purposes as the Assessing Officer has not made any separate addition on this issue to the returned income of the appellant bank since the appellant bank has claimed deduction of Rs.236,69

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant bank under section 36(l)(viia) of the Act in respect of its Bari Brahmana Brach is, therefore, upheld for statistical purposes as the Assessing Officer has not made any separate addition on this issue to the returned income of the appellant bank since the appellant bank has claimed deduction of Rs.236,69

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant bank under section 36(l)(viia) of the Act in respect of its Bari Brahmana Brach is, therefore, upheld for statistical purposes as the Assessing Officer has not made any separate addition on this issue to the returned income of the appellant bank since the appellant bank has claimed deduction of Rs.236,69

SHRI AJAY BALI ,SAMBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.245/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 69 are not at I.T.A. No.245/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 all applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case. As such the assessment order passed is liable to be cancelled. Further, the worthy CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has also grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the AO without any rhyme & reason. As such

DUPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. SH. VINOD ARORA, , BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 40A(3) by virtue of falling in the category of Rule 6DD(b). Accordingly, the disallowance and the consequent addition of Rs. 2,07,24,418/- [Rs. 1,37,31,676/- + Rs. 69

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 is not applicable in the case of the assessee as the source of site expenses were never in dispute as the same were incurred by the assessee and duly reflected in the profit and loss account and have been routed through the books of accounts of the appellant. The very fact that these expenses have been disallowed

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

section 143(1)(a) of the Act, and disallowed the claim of deduction for an amount of Rs. 24,69

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