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

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 from commodity derivatives in the returned income at the time of conducting tax audit u/s.44AB does not arise since the loss was genuinely an allowable business loss. 50. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the undisputed facts are that

SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

loss of Rs. 44,70,775/-. 6 e) Assessee has not annulled the surrender of Rs. 83,00,000/- by debiting the same in trading account since income of Rs. 83,00,000/- has been separately shown in the statement of assessable income. 10. It was further submitted that disallowance of Rs. 14,15,788/- confirmed by learned

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

setting up of cold storages and is not a reimbursement to meet the cost of asset acquired by the appellant company, as has been wrongly alleged by learned AO and learned CIT (A) and thus, the disallowance so made should have been deleted. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the aforesaid disallowance

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

setting up of cold storages and is not a reimbursement to meet the cost of asset acquired by the appellant company, as has been wrongly alleged by learned AO and learned CIT (A) and thus, the disallowance so made should have been deleted. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the aforesaid disallowance

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

setting up of cold storages and is not a reimbursement to meet the cost of asset acquired by the appellant company, as has been wrongly alleged by learned AO and learned CIT (A) and thus, the disallowance so made should have been deleted. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the aforesaid disallowance

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

setting up of cold storages and is not a reimbursement to meet the cost of asset acquired by the appellant company, as has been wrongly alleged by learned AO and learned CIT (A) and thus, the disallowance so made should have been deleted. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the aforesaid disallowance

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

setting up of cold storages and is not a reimbursement to meet the cost of asset acquired by the appellant company, as has been wrongly alleged by learned AO and learned CIT (A) and thus, the disallowance so made should have been deleted. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the aforesaid disallowance

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

setting up of cold storages and is not a reimbursement to meet the cost of asset acquired by the appellant company, as has been wrongly alleged by learned AO and learned CIT (A) and thus, the disallowance so made should have been deleted. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the aforesaid disallowance

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

setting up of cold storages and is not a reimbursement to meet the cost of asset acquired by the appellant company, as has been wrongly alleged by learned AO and learned CIT (A) and thus, the disallowance so made should have been deleted. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the aforesaid disallowance

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

setting up of cold storages and is not a reimbursement to meet the cost of asset acquired by the appellant company, as has been wrongly alleged by learned AO and learned CIT (A) and thus, the disallowance so made should have been deleted. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the aforesaid disallowance

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

setting up of cold storages and is not a reimbursement to meet the cost of asset acquired by the appellant company, as has been wrongly alleged by learned AO and learned CIT (A) and thus, the disallowance so made should have been deleted. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the aforesaid disallowance

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

setting up of cold storages and is not a reimbursement to meet the cost of asset acquired by the appellant company, as has been wrongly alleged by learned AO and learned CIT (A) and thus, the disallowance so made should have been deleted. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in sustaining the aforesaid disallowance

SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.300/Asr/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Mandeep Singh Dhillon Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax #16310, Street No. 13/5 Dhillon Bathinda (Punjab). Colony, Barnala Bye Pass, Bathinda.

set off. The loss and as to how the same is allowable as deduction have not been examined. (viii) From the facts noted above, it is clear that assessee is not doing business activity but the cash balance on 31.03.2014 has been shown at Rs. 65,65,625/- which is more than the double of the so called sales disclosed

MESERS AXON LABORATORIES,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3 , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

set off of losses against the I.T.A No. 316/ASR/2018 3 unexplained income u/s 68/69C of the Act as provided in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE which came into effect from 1st April 2017. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A) and both the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival contention

MESRES ATHOULA CO-OP AGRICULTURE MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowance are endorsed by the Ld CIT(A). Case law referred : CIT Vs Kudu Industries ITA No. 388 of 2014 (0&M)(P&H) which followed the decision of CIT Vs Abhishek Industries [2006] 286 ITR 1 (P&H). 6. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not setting aside the bifurcation of balance sheet of the assessee (duly audited

M/S ATHOULA CO-OP AGRICLUTURE MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowance are endorsed by the Ld CIT(A). Case law referred : CIT Vs Kudu Industries ITA No. 388 of 2014 (0&M)(P&H) which followed the decision of CIT Vs Abhishek Industries [2006] 286 ITR 1 (P&H). 6. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not setting aside the bifurcation of balance sheet of the assessee (duly audited

GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

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

set off of the losses, in this regard it is stated that in AY 2012-13, 2013-14 and AY 2014-15, losses were there for the reason that assessee claimed interest expense as claimed in the current year also and these interest expense were disallowed