M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68,097/-. c) That now coming to comparison of income with reference to amount surrendered at Rs. 1,50,00,000/- please note : Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 Net profit as per profit & loss account 15,51,697 1,57,22,250 Add: Depreciation 2803213 3417550 Add: bank charges & interest & 4152311 8373657 exchange difference and interest to depositors N.P before

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

section 68 was to be deleted.” I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2022 25 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2ND ISSUE AMOUNT RAISED THROUGH UNSECURED LOAN:- 5. Next issue is related to the amount raise through unsecured loan. The ld. Counsel further argued that both in assessing authority and before the Revisional Authority the assessee has submitted the details related to the loan creditors

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - (Chandigarh - Trib.) IN THE Cash credit (Bank deposits) - Assessment ITAT CHANDIGARH year 2008-09 - Assessee made deposits of BENCH 'A' certain sum in bank account - He made various withdrawals from bank account - Gurpreet Singh Assessing Officer in assessment order had v. Income-tax Officer* given a list of cash deposits in bank account

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

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 under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

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

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 under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

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

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 under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

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

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 under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

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

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 under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

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

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 under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

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

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 under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

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

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 under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

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

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 under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

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

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 under which subsidy was received was for incurring expenditure for installation

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

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

section 68 of the Act cannot apply to bank statement etc. which makes the addition as bad in law. 8. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the ex- parte assessment orders passed by the ld. AO u/s. 144 dated 27.12.2017 in violation of principles of natural justice because neither notice

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

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

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

section 68 of the Act cannot apply to bank statement etc. which makes the addition as bad in law. 8. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the ex- parte assessment orders passed by the ld. AO u/s. 144 dated 27.12.2017 in violation of principles of natural justice because neither notice

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

43,99,885/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

43,99,885/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

43,99,885/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He failed to appreciate that when all the ingredients of section

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139. Hence, tax on this income was to be charged under section 115BBE even if it had been declared by the assessee in the return of income. Income has been erroneously taxed at lower tax rate in this case causing prejudice