SHRI CHANDAN BHARDWAJ,TARN TARAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

penalty on the interest earned when the same was duly reflected in form 26AS and TDS has been deducted thereon

SH. JINDER PAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), AMRITSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

penalty on the interest earned when the same was duly reflected in form 26AS and TDS has been deducted thereon

M/S. IQBAL MEMORIAL TRUST ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

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

TDS) (supra), however, we hold that there is no jurisdiction of jurisdictional High Court in favour of the appellant and hence he has confirmed the levy of penalty

SH. RABINDER SINGH WANN,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3),, AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.552/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

TDS)) was though not claimed credit of by the assessee per his return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO), upon confirming the interest credit to the assessee by Sahara, brought the same to tax, also initiating penalty

MR. TIRLOK NATH MAHAJAN,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

TDS and Self-Assessment Tax payment claims of the appellant assessee and allow the same as per law. He contended that the Ld. CIT(A) observation vide para 4.1 of the impugned order that “It is seen that appeal against the original order from which penalty

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

penalty under section 271F upon assessee for failure to file return before end of assessment year - Whether belief of assessee that she was not required to file return before end of relevant assessment year because of reason that entire liability of tax payable on total income was covered by TDS

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

penalty under section 271F upon assessee for failure to file return before end of assessment year - Whether belief of assessee that she was not required to file return before end of relevant assessment year because of reason that entire liability of tax payable on total income was covered by TDS

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

penalty under section 271F upon assessee for failure to file return before end of assessment year - Whether belief of assessee that she was not required to file return before end of relevant assessment year because of reason that entire liability of tax payable on total income was covered by TDS

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

penalty under section 271F upon assessee for failure to file return before end of assessment year - Whether belief of assessee that she was not required to file return before end of relevant assessment year because of reason that entire liability of tax payable on total income was covered by TDS

V R A COTTON MILLS.,ABOHAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

penalty which has been affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), against which the assessee is in appeal before us. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs.1,42,58,665/- u/s 40(a)(ia) r.w. Sec.194C of the Act, on which no TDS

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS (Rs. 13,615) statement), but not accounted for. (b) stamp duty and registration fee on land purchased for Rs. 7.13 lacs during the year, not accounted for. 64,170 (c) unexplained credit in the form of increased credit balance on 01.04.2011 in account of M/s. J.K. Tyre, a trade creditor, vis-à-vis as on 30.03.2011. 98,801 Penalty

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

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

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

TDS has not been deducted, therefore, this payment is not allowable as deduction while computing the income chargeable under the head "profits of business or profession". e. In view of these facts, the said amount of Rs.2,33,432/- is hereby disallowed u/s 40(aj(ia) and added back to total income of the assessee. Penalty

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS ) WARD, AMRITSAR

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

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

TDS, Bathinda, [in brevity‘the AO’] order passed u/s 200Aof the Act. 2. At the outset, both appeals are under the same factual backdrop and have a common issue. Both the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. ITA No. 202/Asr/2022 is taken as lead case. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. THE PENALTY

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS ) WARD, AMRITSAR

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

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

TDS, Bathinda, [in brevity‘the AO’] order passed u/s 200Aof the Act. 2. At the outset, both appeals are under the same factual backdrop and have a common issue. Both the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. ITA No. 202/Asr/2022 is taken as lead case. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. THE PENALTY

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

penalty of Rs.4.18 lakhs). 2 I.T.A. No. 70/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 2. Brief facts emerging are that the assessee is a transport contractor under FCI (Food Corporation of India)engaged in the business of providing goods carriage (trucks)for transportation of food grains from their godowns, as per requirement of FCI (the contractee in this case

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

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

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

TDS amount to Rs.1,47,454/- and I.T.A. No. 189/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2015-16 late filing fee U/s 234E amount to Rs.1,67,750/-. So, accordingly, the calculation of demand amount as per the revenue is inserted as below: 8. The assessee is only for liable to late filing fee u/s 234E is Rs.1,67,750/-. After receiving this

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 In appeal, the assessee disputed the computation of STCG as well as that of LTCG. The first appellate authority decided thus (vide order dated 15.01.2014): ‘6. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that whereas a composite sale deed has been executed without

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 In appeal, the assessee disputed the computation of STCG as well as that of LTCG. The first appellate authority decided thus (vide order dated 15.01.2014): ‘6. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that whereas a composite sale deed has been executed without