THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HOSHIARPUR vs. THE HOSIARPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

section 36(i) (VIIA). b) Provision made against Standard Loan 2500000.00 c) Provision made against Main B.O., Fraud 21718237.00 d) Interest paid to Main Branch Hoshiarpur 25857709.42 ---------------- Total 60075946.42” We find that while disallowing the total amount of Rs.6,00,75

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP. BANK LTD.,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

section 36(i) (VIIA). b) Provision made against Standard Loan 2500000.00 c) Provision made against Main B.O., Fraud 21718237.00 d) Interest paid to Main Branch Hoshiarpur 25857709.42 ---------------- Total 60075946.42” We find that while disallowing the total amount of Rs.6,00,75

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP. BANK LTD,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

section 36(i) (VIIA). b) Provision made against Standard Loan 2500000.00 c) Provision made against Main B.O., Fraud 21718237.00 d) Interest paid to Main Branch Hoshiarpur 25857709.42 ---------------- Total 60075946.42” We find that while disallowing the total amount of Rs.6,00,75

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR vs. HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP. BANK LTD., HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

section 36(i) (VIIA). b) Provision made against Standard Loan 2500000.00 c) Provision made against Main B.O., Fraud 21718237.00 d) Interest paid to Main Branch Hoshiarpur 25857709.42 ---------------- Total 60075946.42” We find that while disallowing the total amount of Rs.6,00,75

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

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives, he placed reliance on Apex Court Judgement in the case of M/s. Saraf Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, in Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] rendered on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view

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

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives, he placed reliance on Apex Court Judgement in the case of M/s. Saraf Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, in Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] rendered on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view

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

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives, he placed reliance on Apex Court Judgement in the case of M/s. Saraf Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, in Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] rendered on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view

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

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives, he placed reliance on Apex Court Judgement in the case of M/s. Saraf Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, in Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] rendered on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view

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

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives, he placed reliance on Apex Court Judgement in the case of M/s. Saraf Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, in Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] rendered on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view

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

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives, he placed reliance on Apex Court Judgement in the case of M/s. Saraf Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, in Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] rendered on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view

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

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act claimed on income arising out of export incentives, he placed reliance on Apex Court Judgement in the case of M/s. Saraf Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, in Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No.17539 of 2016] rendered on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

75,585/- is confirmed. The disallowance of interest at Rs.1,95,496/- amount of bank interest is also considered and found that in view of interest free advances made by violating the provisions of section

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

75,585/- is confirmed. The disallowance of interest at Rs.1,95,496/- amount of bank interest is also considered and found that in view of interest free advances made by violating the provisions of section

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

75,585/- is confirmed. The disallowance of interest at Rs.1,95,496/- amount of bank interest is also considered and found that in view of interest free advances made by violating the provisions of section

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

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

75,585/- is confirmed. The disallowance of interest at Rs.1,95,496/- amount of bank interest is also considered and found that in view of interest free advances made by violating the provisions of section

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

75,269/- depreciation disallowed Rs.6744 and Rs.9189 and further adhoc disallowance Rs.10,000/- was made out of entertainment expenses. Against the order of the ld. AO,assessee had filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).But the ld. CIT(A) had accepted the observation of the ld. AO and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITURE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

75,269/- depreciation disallowed Rs.6744 and Rs.9189 and further adhoc disallowance Rs.10,000/- was made out of entertainment expenses. Against the order of the ld. AO,assessee had filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).But the ld. CIT(A) had accepted the observation of the ld. AO and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

75,269/- depreciation disallowed Rs.6744 and Rs.9189 and further adhoc disallowance Rs.10,000/- was made out of entertainment expenses. Against the order of the ld. AO,assessee had filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).But the ld. CIT(A) had accepted the observation of the ld. AO and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal