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 43B or under section 36(l)(va); SLP dismissed" (v) That since the assessee appellant falls within the jurisdiction of the Hon'able Punjab & Haryana High Court, therefore, the decision of the jurisdictional High Court necessarily have to prevail even if there are contrary decisions/judgment of other High Court having a different opinion. I.T.A. Nos.23, 24&14/Asr/2023

M/S GLOBE AUTO ARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- III (4), JALANDHAR

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

87-BMC Chowk Point, Bye Pass, Jalandhar Application for condonation of delay Honorable Sirs With reference to above, I submit as under:- 1. That order was received on 04.08.2021 and appeal was due to be filed on or before 03.10.2021. 2. That necessary fees was deposited well before time i.e. 29.09.2021. 3. That appeal was sent to Income Tax Appellate

M/S GLOBE AUTO PARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III, JALANDHAR

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

87-BMC Chowk Point, Bye Pass, Jalandhar Application for condonation of delay Honorable Sirs With reference to above, I submit as under:- 1. That order was received on 04.08.2021 and appeal was due to be filed on or before 03.10.2021. 2. That necessary fees was deposited well before time i.e. 29.09.2021. 3. That appeal was sent to Income Tax Appellate

SHRI PARAMJIT SINGH SANDHU PROP. M/S MANIKARAN BUILDERS,AMRITSAR vs. DY.CPC/ DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees is allowed in the terms indicated as above

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

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court.” 8. In the instant case, admittedly the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees have been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income

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

87,990/- (Rs.4,16,169/- (+) Rs.71,818/-). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), and has taken the following grounds on basis of the explanation of section 36(1)(va) and 43B which was observed in retrospectively and request for application in legal way. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld.AO. Aggrieved assessee filed

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

87,990/- (Rs.4,16,169/- (+) Rs.71,818/-). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), and has taken the following grounds on basis of the explanation of section 36(1)(va) and 43B which was observed in retrospectively and request for application in legal way. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld.AO. Aggrieved assessee filed

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

87,990/- (Rs.4,16,169/- (+) Rs.71,818/-). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), and has taken the following grounds on basis of the explanation of section 36(1)(va) and 43B which was observed in retrospectively and request for application in legal way. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld.AO. Aggrieved assessee filed

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

disallowance, involving intense legal debate, could not made under the limited scope of section 143( 1), and ought to have been deleted on this very premise. That the impugned order, being totally de hors the facts and the legal position, is liable to be set aside and quashed.” 4. The appeal, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 was called for hearing but none

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

disallowance, involving intense legal debate, could not made under the limited scope of section 143( 1), and ought to have been deleted on this very premise. That the impugned order, being totally de hors the facts and the legal position, is liable to be set aside and quashed.” 4. The appeal, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 was called for hearing but none

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

87,990/- (Rs.4,16,169/- (+) Rs.71,818/-). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), and has taken the following grounds on basis of the explanation of section 36(1)(va) and 43B which was observed in retrospectively and request for application in legal way. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld.AO. Aggrieved assessee filed

SHRI ROHIT INDER SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 375/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

87,738/-. Additions Under section 41(1) of the Act 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.32,41,130/-on account of sundry creditors u/s 41(1), inter alia by treating as cessation

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy 19. The ld. counsel vehemently argued and relied on the submission. We consider the assessee’s submission of the relevant pages 4 to 9 are reproduced as under: I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 47 “1.7 It is submitted that perusal of the aforesaid explanation would show that where a portion

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy 19. The ld. counsel vehemently argued and relied on the submission. We consider the assessee’s submission of the relevant pages 4 to 9 are reproduced as under: I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 47 “1.7 It is submitted that perusal of the aforesaid explanation would show that where a portion

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy 19. The ld. counsel vehemently argued and relied on the submission. We consider the assessee’s submission of the relevant pages 4 to 9 are reproduced as under: I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 47 “1.7 It is submitted that perusal of the aforesaid explanation would show that where a portion

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy 19. The ld. counsel vehemently argued and relied on the submission. We consider the assessee’s submission of the relevant pages 4 to 9 are reproduced as under: I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 47 “1.7 It is submitted that perusal of the aforesaid explanation would show that where a portion

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy 19. The ld. counsel vehemently argued and relied on the submission. We consider the assessee’s submission of the relevant pages 4 to 9 are reproduced as under: I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 47 “1.7 It is submitted that perusal of the aforesaid explanation would show that where a portion

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy 19. The ld. counsel vehemently argued and relied on the submission. We consider the assessee’s submission of the relevant pages 4 to 9 are reproduced as under: I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 47 “1.7 It is submitted that perusal of the aforesaid explanation would show that where a portion

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Disallowance on account of depreciation claimed in respect of Capital Subsidy 19. The ld. counsel vehemently argued and relied on the submission. We consider the assessee’s submission of the relevant pages 4 to 9 are reproduced as under: I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 47 “1.7 It is submitted that perusal of the aforesaid explanation would show that where a portion