SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

depreciation and interest paid. Thus, ground no. 1 is partly allowed. 12. The ground no. 2 to 4 are general in nature and hence do not require adjudication. Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO 13. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs 5,72,590.00/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of wages payable, that assessee could not establish

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

depreciation and interest paid. Thus, ground no. 1 is partly allowed. 12. The ground no. 2 to 4 are general in nature and hence do not require adjudication. Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO 13. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs 5,72,590.00/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of wages payable, that assessee could not establish

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

depreciation will be allowed. In the present case, to the extent of the expenditure incurred for construction of the building, out of unexplained source is concerned, it is to be construed as income earned from the business and it will take character of the business income. The case law relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) is distinguishable

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

68, and its said observations were in the context of the meaning of the expression 'the assessee offers no explanation’ (or one that is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer), which finds mention in section 69/69A as well. Further still, though there is no rebuttal by the assessee, and even as the same represents a part

SH.SHREE GURU NANAK DEV QUIN-CENTENARY CELEBRATION COMMITTEE,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Asr/2019 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shree Guru Nanak Dev Vs. Ito(Exemptions) Ward, Quin-Centenary Celebrations Jalandhar Committee, Guru Nanak Bhawan, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aawfs 2431 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (" यथ" / Respondent) : Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate िनधा"!रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By : Shri M.P.Singh, Cit-Dr राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सुनवाई क" तार'ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार'ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Ludhiana, Dated 08.02.2019, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Erroneous & Perverse & Thus Needs To Be Quashed. 2. That The Issuance Of Notice U/S 147/148 Is Bad In Law As No New Material Was There With The Ao To Initiate Action U/S 147 & The Proceedings In Furtherance Of Illegal Notice Are Void Ab-Initio & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Addition Made By Ao & Partially Confirmed By Cit (A) Is Devoid Of Proper Appreciation Of Facts On Record & Against Express Provisions Of Law & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Disposal Of The Present Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.06.2010 Declaring Total Income After Claiming Exemption

68,024. This has resulted into overstatement of capital fund to the tune of Rs.9805000/- (28168024-183630324) Capital Fund Details :- 31.03.2009 Rs. 18363024/- 31.03.2010 Rs. 28168024/- Unexplained Addition Rs. 9805000/- It was ascertained from the assessment record that assessee has not filed explanation alongwith documents/evidence about source of his increase in the capital fund. Resultantly, assessee has taken overstatement

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

depreciation in capital subsidy. In our considered view, this capital subsidy of the assessee is not interfering in the ‘actual cost’ of the assets. The assessee received this capital subsidy from NABARD. Here, we are intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A).The addition amount of Rs. 23,16,393/- is quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

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

depreciation in capital subsidy. In our considered view, this capital subsidy of the assessee is not interfering in the ‘actual cost’ of the assets. The assessee received this capital subsidy from NABARD. Here, we are intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A).The addition amount of Rs. 23,16,393/- is quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

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

depreciation in capital subsidy. In our considered view, this capital subsidy of the assessee is not interfering in the ‘actual cost’ of the assets. The assessee received this capital subsidy from NABARD. Here, we are intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A).The addition amount of Rs. 23,16,393/- is quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

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

depreciation in capital subsidy. In our considered view, this capital subsidy of the assessee is not interfering in the ‘actual cost’ of the assets. The assessee received this capital subsidy from NABARD. Here, we are intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A).The addition amount of Rs. 23,16,393/- is quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

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

depreciation in capital subsidy. In our considered view, this capital subsidy of the assessee is not interfering in the ‘actual cost’ of the assets. The assessee received this capital subsidy from NABARD. Here, we are intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A).The addition amount of Rs. 23,16,393/- is quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

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

depreciation in capital subsidy. In our considered view, this capital subsidy of the assessee is not interfering in the ‘actual cost’ of the assets. The assessee received this capital subsidy from NABARD. Here, we are intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A).The addition amount of Rs. 23,16,393/- is quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

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

depreciation in capital subsidy. In our considered view, this capital subsidy of the assessee is not interfering in the ‘actual cost’ of the assets. The assessee received this capital subsidy from NABARD. Here, we are intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A).The addition amount of Rs. 23,16,393/- is quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

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

depreciation in capital subsidy. In our considered view, this capital subsidy of the assessee is not interfering in the ‘actual cost’ of the assets. The assessee received this capital subsidy from NABARD. Here, we are intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A).The addition amount of Rs. 23,16,393/- is quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

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

depreciation in capital subsidy. In our considered view, this capital subsidy of the assessee is not interfering in the ‘actual cost’ of the assets. The assessee received this capital subsidy from NABARD. Here, we are intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A).The addition amount of Rs. 23,16,393/- is quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

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

depreciation in capital subsidy. In our considered view, this capital subsidy of the assessee is not interfering in the ‘actual cost’ of the assets. The assessee received this capital subsidy from NABARD. Here, we are intervening in the order of the ld. CIT(A).The addition amount of Rs. 23,16,393/- is quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation allowance and viii) disallowance U/s 40A(3) amount to Rs. 8,38,000/-.Being aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved revenue filed an appeal before us. Ground No.1 4. In the ground no. 1 of the revenue, the DR vehemently argued and contended

INCOME TAX OFFICEER, WARD - 2(2),, JAMMU vs. M/S NIKHIL INFRA - TECH LTD., DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 373/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

depreciation allowance (Rs.3.18 lacs) and interest u/s. 361(iii) (at Rs.9.46 lacs), as well as addition u/s. 68 qua a secured loan (Rs.97.01 lacs), were effected. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO in pursuance to the assessee’s Ground 2 before him challenging the assessment u/s. 144 in view

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

68,888/- on account of surrendered income and on account of disallowance of personal expenses pertaining to car expenses and depreciation. In the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. -vs.- CIT- II, 358 ITR 593 (SC), The Hon’ble Apex Court had held that: “9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH. M/S NOVELTY SWEETS, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation and referred to the Memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill, 2022 and mentioned that the main reason to bring new Section 79A in the statue book was that there was currently no provision in the Act to disallow such business loss with the surrendered income and the new section is applicable from assessment year 2022-23 onward