M/S MANAGING COMMITTEE SWAMI PREMANAND MAHAVIDALYA,HOSHIARPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

10(23C) being an educational society. xiii. Elaboration about how the society is now claiming its charitable intent after 37years of its creation and operating without having registration under this section? Why is there sudden need for seeking exemption. xiv. The details of salary paid during the last three years and whether the same are guided by TDS

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 101 of the Evidence Act 1872, the onus is on the appellant to prove that the LTCG is genuine. However, the appellant has not been able to discharge the onus cast on it. The findings of the AO are based on strong surrounding circumstances, preponderance of probability and human conduct in light of analysis of modus 8 I.T.A

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 101 of the Evidence Act 1872, the onus is on the appellant to prove that the LTCG is genuine. However, the appellant has not been able to discharge the onus cast on it. The findings of the AO are based on strong surrounding circumstances, preponderance of probability and human conduct in light of analysis of modus 8 I.T.A

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

TDS u/s 194DA has been made. It is also important to note that the burden of proving that a particular item of income falls within this section (section 10) is on the assessee

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS,), JALANDHAR

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

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

section 10(23C)(iiiad). The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities related to non-deduction of TDS

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

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

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

section 10(23C)(iiiad). The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities related to non-deduction of TDS

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

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

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

section 10(23C)(iiiad). The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities related to non-deduction of TDS

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

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

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

section 10(23C)(iiiad). The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities related to non-deduction of TDS

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

section 200A of the Act as the enabling provision was not present. In the present case, TDS Quarterly statements were filed after 01/06/2015. Thus, the AO was correct in levy of fee u/s 200A of the I T Act. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the intimations issued by CPC (TDS). Therefore, all the grounds

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

10(37) was duly verified thoroughly by the A O as well as the Commissioner based on which the refund of tax deducted at source of Rs. 97,59,570/- was granted on 21.4.2011 as per orders of the A O as well as the Commissioner based on the verification reports of the departmental officers deputed for the purpose

M/S DICKSON ELECTRONICS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, ground of assessee related addition of interest amount to

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

10@. The sim-card was sold to the party @4% discount. The same amount was already deducted TDS by the BSNL. So, no need to deduction of TDS 2nd time on the same amount. The doubled taxation in same amount is nullity. The assessee relied on the order of Coordinate Bench in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section 200A for TDS return filed for the period before 01.06.2015 and henceforth levy of fees u/s 234E in the case is without jurisdiction. 10. That

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section 200A for TDS return filed for the period before 01.06.2015 and henceforth levy of fees u/s 234E in the case is without jurisdiction. 10. That

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section 200A for TDS return filed for the period before 01.06.2015 and henceforth levy of fees u/s 234E in the case is without jurisdiction. 10. That

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section 200A for TDS return filed for the period before 01.06.2015 and henceforth levy of fees u/s 234E in the case is without jurisdiction. 10. That

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

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

10-11, Paper Book Page no. 34-36. Also, during Assessment year 11-12 & 13-14, the same rate of interest was accepted in assessment &completed under section 143(1) of the act. Therefore, concept of consistency has not been followed. 6..1. In this context Mr Singla respectfully relied of the following judgments which are placed before

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

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

10-11, Paper Book Page no. 34-36. Also, during Assessment year 11-12 & 13-14, the same rate of interest was accepted in assessment &completed under section 143(1) of the act. Therefore, concept of consistency has not been followed. 6..1. In this context Mr Singla respectfully relied of the following judgments which are placed before

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

TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature of income for a same amount in question cannot be treated differently by the deductor and the deductee. This goes to prove that the treatment of rental income as business income is again not correct. 4 In view of the above facts, the rental income