ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY 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 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

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

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

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

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,, 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 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 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

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

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

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. 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,, 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

SHRI NITIN AIMA,SHRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance would be called.\nImportantly the duty drawback has not been assessed as income from\nother sources by the assessing officer as would be evident from the\nassessment order itself. The assessing officer having accepted the duty\ndrawback income as business income could not have excluded the\nsame from the computation of exemption u/s 10AA in view of the\nspecific

SUNITA JAIN ,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

section 142(1) alongwith questionnaire were issued on 19.06.2019, 15.10.2019 and duly served upon the assessee calling for various details and information. In response to the notices, the assessee filed reply from time to time and placed on record. 2. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the following ground:- “Cash deposits during demonetization period” 3. During the course