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

74,000/- and net profit as per Profit and Loss A/c was declared amount to Rs.10,55,09,82,000/-. The assessing authority had added back in different heads related u/s 40(a) (ia) for non-deduction TDS, interest paid to JDA (J & K Development Authority). for non-deduction of TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5

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

74,000/- and net profit as per Profit and Loss A/c was declared amount to Rs.10,55,09,82,000/-. The assessing authority had added back in different heads related u/s 40(a) (ia) for non-deduction TDS, interest paid to JDA (J & K Development Authority). for non-deduction of TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5

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

74,000/- and net profit as per Profit and Loss A/c was declared amount to Rs.10,55,09,82,000/-. The assessing authority had added back in different heads related u/s 40(a) (ia) for non-deduction TDS, interest paid to JDA (J & K Development Authority). for non-deduction of TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5

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

74,000/- and net profit as per Profit and Loss A/c was declared amount to Rs.10,55,09,82,000/-. The assessing authority had added back in different heads related u/s 40(a) (ia) for non-deduction TDS, interest paid to JDA (J & K Development Authority). for non-deduction of TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5

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

74,000/- and net profit as per Profit and Loss A/c was declared amount to Rs.10,55,09,82,000/-. The assessing authority had added back in different heads related u/s 40(a) (ia) for non-deduction TDS, interest paid to JDA (J & K Development Authority). for non-deduction of TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5

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

74,000/- and net profit as per Profit and Loss A/c was declared amount to Rs.10,55,09,82,000/-. The assessing authority had added back in different heads related u/s 40(a) (ia) for non-deduction TDS, interest paid to JDA (J & K Development Authority). for non-deduction of TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3, SRINAGAR vs. MEASAGE SAIFCO CEEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Department and CO of the Assesse is 23

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

74(SC) has held as under:- 15 I.T.A. No. 451/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 6/Asr/2022 Assessment year, 2013-14 "Section36(1)(iii)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest on borrowed capital – Assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92-Whether borrowed fund advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency, if it is sought to be allowed under section

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

disallowance to the extent of Rs. 51,74,713/- on the ground that the underlying expenditure was not in the nature of a donation, but rather a mandatory contribution towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as specified under the Companies Act, 2013. That A.O. failed to appreciate that CSR contribution to the registered institutions is permissible under section

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

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

section 57(iii) the income Tax Act, 1961 in computing its income from interest under the head “income from other sources” 3.2 Upon due consideration of facts, Ld. assessing officer has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 57 of the I.T. Act 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,74

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)

section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 to restrict the amount of disallowance worked out as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that each and every grievance of the revenue is duly covered in favour of assessee by the order of the Amritsar Bench in ITA No. 206/Asr/2013

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 40(b) makes a difference in the situation, is untenable. In our considered opinion, the answer to the question has to be in the negative and in favour of the assesses. 6. The question is answered accordingly. From the judicial decisions stated above, it is clear that once books of account are rejected

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 40(b) makes a difference in the situation, is untenable. In our considered opinion, the answer to the question has to be in the negative and in favour of the assesses. 6. The question is answered accordingly. From the judicial decisions stated above, it is clear that once books of account are rejected

MESERS P.D SEKHSARIA TRADING COMPANY ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

disallowance of loss claimed on account of trading in commodity derivative of Rs.4,69,47,808/- by treating the transactions carried on by the assessee ITA No. 331/Asr./2018 4 SA No. 03/Asr./2019 P.D. Sekhsaria Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. between the period 21.05.2013 to 22.08.2013 as speculative transaction. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing

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

disallowance. ii. Paramount Impex v. AC IT, Circle-J, Ludhiana [2020] 117 taxmann.com 802 (Chandigarh Trib.) Section 145 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Rejection of Account (Non-maintenance of stock register) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Whether where assessee was dealing in a large number of small items and it was consistently following method of determining stock

SHRI RAJNISH DHAWAN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

74,170/- was wrongly not allowed by the AO under section 143(1) without any opportunity to the assessee and ignoring that the deduction is allowable on merits and also allowed in earlier year. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any of the ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 10(38) merely by relying on statements of accommodation entry providers which were recorded much before date of survey.” 27 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 26. Relying on the above decisions of various courts the tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Rama Mittal in ITA 26/ASR/2024

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 10(38) merely by relying on statements of accommodation entry providers which were recorded much before date of survey.” 27 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 26. Relying on the above decisions of various courts the tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Rama Mittal in ITA 26/ASR/2024

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.21,05,192/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case