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

section 43B(d) of the Act can be allowed as a deduction only m the year in which such interest are actually paid. 14. The assessee has cited various judgments particularly related to accrual of liability of expenditure, judgments cited by the assessee do not apply to the instant case. In case of Telelink Neco Ltd., (2001) 73

A.N.R MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section 143(1), and ought to have been deleted on this very premise. 5. That the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in skipping the last gorund of appeal and impliedly confirming a mechanical addition made by CPC by disallowance of Cow cess of Rs.538669/- & Labour Welfare fund of Rs.20610 = Rs.559279/-, when the said disallowance had already been made in computation

A.N.R MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section 143(1), and ought to have been deleted on this very premise. 5. That the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in skipping the last gorund of appeal and impliedly confirming a mechanical addition made by CPC by disallowance of Cow cess of Rs.538669/- & Labour Welfare fund of Rs.20610 = Rs.559279/-, when the said disallowance had already been made in computation

SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

73 Section 69B, read with section 145, of the Income-tax Act, taxmann.com 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Stocks) - Whether where 100 books of account of assessee had been rejected by (Karnataka) assessing authority, same books of account could not be CIT, Belgaum v. relied upon in an addition on account of trade creditors Bahubali and also for arriving at closing stock

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. SH. MOHAN LAL, BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 170/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pan: Aajpl8560B Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Prop. Ward-1(2), Bathinda. M/S Ramji Dass Bko, Vill. Bhagiwander, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. (Appellant) (Respondent)

73,963/- and Rs.8,70,016/- by observing that “nikasi” also includes “chunai and keri” and there cannot be a “nikasi” without “chunai and keri”. The observation made by the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda does not appear to be correct as the assessee has nowhere taken this plea during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the plea taken

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

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

disallowing the special deduction was not valid." 9. The Hon,ble Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Khushi Ram & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has decided similar issue wherein the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs. 80 lacs during the course of survey on account of building renovation, office equipment and sundry receivables and claimed set off of unabsorbed losses

KHYBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

disallowance of Rs. 83,21,928/- relying on the amendment made to section 36(1) (va) by Finance Act, 2021 holding the same to be clarificatory ignoring the fact that the said amendment was applicable prospectively i.ew.e.fAsessment Year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years only. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the calculation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3, SRINAGAR vs. MEASAGE LANDS AND AUTOMOTIVE , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground of the revenue appeal bearing ITA 353/Asr/2019 is

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

73,86,677/- which was duly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) against the order of the ld. AO. In other issue, disallowance of the expenses amount of Rs.4,91,360/- which was also deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order. The revenue has grievance that the order passed I.T.A. No.353/Asr/2019 3 Assessment Year: 2013-14 without

INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD II(1), JALANDHAR

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

disallowed and accordingly, addition of Rs. 1,74,48,000/- was made to the income of the assessee. 4. The aggrieved assessee went before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition by observing as under: 6.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee

THE BAGHAPURANA & CO OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFEIER-2, MOGA

In the result, ground nos

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

disallow the exemption claimed u/s. 80P(2) claimed by the assessee treating its income under the head “Business and Profession”. The considering fact, the assessee added back the interest 2,73,342/- on account of income from other sources by invoking section

M/S BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

section 80IB makes it reasonable for the Assessing Officer to make suitable disallowance under this head. In the circumstances, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is upheld being a reasonable estimate.” 11. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities ITA No. 354/Asr./2014 14 Bright Enterprises

M/S. BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

section 80IB makes it reasonable for the Assessing Officer to make suitable disallowance under this head. In the circumstances, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is upheld being a reasonable estimate.” 11. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities ITA No. 354/Asr./2014 14 Bright Enterprises

SPARROW SECURITY SERVICES ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

73 March 26.04.2018 167353 45105 122248 493388 1340696 I.T.A. No.40/Asr/2023 8 Assessment Year: 2018-19 c) It is pertinent to mention here that the due date of deposit of provident fund as per The Provident Funds Act, 1925 is 15th of next month and for any fund set up as per EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948, the due date

SH. MANGAT TREHAN ,HOSHIARPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 223/Asr/2019 is 10

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

73 taxmann.com54 (Amritsar-Trib.)/[2016] 47 ITR (T) 33 (Amritsar-Trib.) [25.02.2016]: I.T.A. No. 223/Asr/2019 8 “IT: Where Assessing Officer completed assessment in case of assessee under section 143(3), in absence of any failure on part of assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment reassessment proceedings could not be initiated after expiry of four years from

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

73. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, no orders as to costs.” 7.2.1.2. The SLP of revenue against the order of MeetaGutgutia is dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT, Central IT, New Delhiv.MeetaGutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) “Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

73. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, no orders as to costs.” 7.2.1.2. The SLP of revenue against the order of MeetaGutgutia is dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT, Central IT, New Delhiv.MeetaGutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) “Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure

MEASAGE G. H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

73. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, no orders as to costs.” 7.2.1.2. The SLP of revenue against the order of MeetaGutgutia is dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT, Central IT, New Delhiv.MeetaGutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) “Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

73. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, no orders as to costs.” 7.2.1.2. The SLP of revenue against the order of MeetaGutgutia is dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT, Central IT, New Delhiv.MeetaGutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) “Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure