HOSHIARPUR TRADERS ,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

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

IV) Vide questionnaire dated 17.10.2019 at point no.3, the assessee was asked by the AO to furnish the following: I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 9 Assessment Year: 2017-18 “Complete details of unsecured loans including squared up accounts with opening and closing balances and sources / copy of accounts for amounts received during the year. Give complete address and PAN of depositors". In response

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

IV of SikhRehtMaryada , it is mentioned k) No person, no matter which country, religion or caste he/she belongs to, is debarred from entering the gurdwara for darshan (seeing the holy shrine). However, he/she should not have on his/her person anything, such as tobacco or other intoxicants, which are tabooed by the Sikh religion. 26 m) In the congregation, there should

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

iv) 55 taxmann.com 33(Kol) Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. DC1T Section 43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme

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

iv) 55 taxmann.com 33(Kol) Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. DC1T Section 43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme

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

iv) 55 taxmann.com 33(Kol) Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. DC1T Section 43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme

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

iv) 55 taxmann.com 33(Kol) Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. DC1T Section 43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme

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

iv) 55 taxmann.com 33(Kol) Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. DC1T Section 43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme

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

iv) 55 taxmann.com 33(Kol) Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. DC1T Section 43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme

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

iv) 55 taxmann.com 33(Kol) Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. DC1T Section 43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme

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

iv) 55 taxmann.com 33(Kol) Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. DC1T Section 43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme

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

iv) 55 taxmann.com 33(Kol) Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. DC1T Section 43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme

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

iv) 55 taxmann.com 33(Kol) Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. DC1T Section 43(1), read with Explanation 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Actual cost (Subsidy) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was engaged in business of production of cement, received sales tax subsidy under a scheme of Government -Whether sales tax incentive was capital in nature as very scheme

MESERS SHRI SWAMI SHANKARNATH PARVAT CHARITABLE AND WELFARE TRUST ,KAPURTHALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

iv) Copy of letter dated 11.09.2018 for filing Expense vouchers, Receipts of donations, Receipts of Agriculture Produce and J- Forms- ANNEXURE D. (v) Copy of letter dated 24.09.2018 replying to additional queries raised and filed replies to 8 queries regarding detail of Agriculture Produce in whose name the Agriculture Land stands, details of Agriculture Expenses, detail of expenses on Charity

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

35,68,26,820/- by applying 63.79% of total cost incurred. That the DRP has erred in rejecting the value o' power considered by the assessee on the basis TNM method at Rs 47,97,24,111/-and confirming addition of Rs 12,28,97,957/-. 6. The AO on the directions of DRP had erred both in fact

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

iv) Expenditure has been laid down or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession of the assessee; (v) Expenditure has not been incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. ……………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………….. In the assessee’ case the nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income earned has not been shown. Even

SHRI NASIR AHMED RANGSHU,ANANTNAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

1) The statement of the assessee differed during the Investigation and the assessment proceedings. (2) There was no requirement to carry funds in the form of cash from Srinagar to Delhi. (3) The AO further observed that the assessee might have acquired the said funds from his undisclosed income/sources. (4) During pre-investigation stage, the assessee in his statement

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

1 & 2 of the order. 12. That written submissions it was mentioned as under :----------- were filed vide letter dated 28.05.2019 (Paper Book Page No. 9 to 62), letter dated 01.07.2019 (Paper Book Page No. 63 to 121), letter dated 08.08.2019 (Paper Book Page No. 122 to 127), letter dated 21.08.2019 (Paper Book Page No. 128 to 183), letter dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

section 68 of the act are satisfied with regard to loan*'of Rs 1,00,00,000/- received by the appellant from Sh. Amandeep Singh in the year under consideration and no addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- is called for u/s 68 of the act in respect of loan from Sh. Amandeep Singh and the same