SHIVAM ENTERPRISES HARBILAS,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 194/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12

reassessment is to be in any case satisfied. True, the depreciation rate in such a case is not 40%, but 30%, as allowed

SH. KARAMJIT SINGH RAI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5),, KATRA vs. SH. CHAIN SINGH, KATRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhryassessment Year:2010-11

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

depreciation, TDS etc in the assessment order without any reference to reasons recorded is held to be without jurisdiction. 8. From the above, it is evident that the grounds of claim of excess/ bogus expenses on which reassessment

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

depreciation, TDS etc in the assessment order without any reference to reasons recorded is held to be without jurisdiction. 8. From the above, it is evident that the grounds of claim of excess/ bogus expenses on which reassessment

SMT. BHARTI SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

depreciation, TDS etc in the assessment order without any reference to reasons recorded is held to be without jurisdiction. 8. From the above, it is evident that the grounds of claim of excess/ bogus expenses on which reassessment

SH. PRATAP SINGH SAMRA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

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

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

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recomputed the loss or the depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 9 which has escaped assessment and which comes to his/her notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or re-compute the loss or the depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 9 which has escaped assessment and which comes to his/her notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or re-compute the loss or the depreciation

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

reassessment as well.” Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryanain Vipin Khanna vs. CIT 255 ITR 220, the relevant paragraph is extracted as follows: - “14. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the letter dated 30-7- 1998 issued by the Assessing Officer insofar as it relates to matters unconnected with the issue of depreciation

SH. JASBIR SINGH S/O TEK CHAND,,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 600/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

depreciation, which, as it appears, works to Rs. 18.40 lacs, would though have to be restricted to an amount equal to that required to bring the assessee’s assessed income at par with that originally assessed, i.e., Rs. 1,38,900/-, as returned by the assessee. This is in view of the decision in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works

M/S PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

depreciation amount of Rs.6744/- and Rs.9189/- and ad hoc disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific para 4.8 order of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted

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

depreciation amount of Rs.6744/- and Rs.9189/- and ad hoc disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific para 4.8 order of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted

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

depreciation amount of Rs.6744/- and Rs.9189/- and ad hoc disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific para 4.8 order of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted

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

depreciation amount of Rs.6744/- and Rs.9189/- and ad hoc disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific para 4.8 order of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted

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

In the result, the ITA No

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

depreciation amount of Rs.6744/- and Rs.9189/- and ad hoc disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific para 4.8 order of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee did not furnish

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee did not furnish