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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 inducing the belief. Such a belief has not to be based on mere suspicion but it must be based on information as was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 191. Thus, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 cannot

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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 inducing the belief. Such a belief has not to be based on mere suspicion but it must be based on information as was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 191. Thus, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 cannot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -IV, KAPURTHALA vs. M/S PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK, KAPURTHALA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

section 10 is unconditionally exempt and they are not statutorily required to file return of income as per Sec. 139 of the IT Act, therefore, there would be no requirement for tax deduction at source since their income any way is exempt under the income tax act. We find that as the assessee bank was conveyed by PTU that

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

TDS) v. Schutz Dishman Bio-tech (P.) Ltd. (TA No. 958 of 2018, dated 21/12/2015, at PB pgs. 10-12). The said decisions, which have been carefully perused, are without reference to the deliberations; the findings and the observations by the Apex Court per its larger bench decisions, since followed per its’ division bench decisions. There is in fact

SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

37,730 which was selected under CASS for Limited scrutiny for examination of large expenses. The same was assessed at Rs.18,63,230 vide order dated 21.11.2016 under section 143(3) of the Act. On examination of records, Satish Kumar v. Pr.CIT- Jalandhar/I.T.A.No. 258/ASR/2019/A.Y. 14-15 Page 3 of 20 the Pr. CIT noticed that the assessee has debited

SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, ZIRA

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

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

TDS of Rs.4,07,893/- was effected on the said amount @ 20%+3% CESS. 8. In terms of the provisions of sub section (iv) of section 57, read with sub- clause (viii) of section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the taxability of 50% of such interest cannot be escaped by the appellant. The action

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

section 194C of the Act as considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT (TDS) v. United Rice Land Ltd.[2010] 322 ITR 594 1. A further finding of fact is that the freight payment is Rs. 1,72,723 and none of the individual payment exceeded Rs. 20,000. It was also not disputed that

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

section 194C of the Act as considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT (TDS) v. United Rice Land Ltd.[2010] 322 ITR 594 1. A further finding of fact is that the freight payment is Rs. 1,72,723 and none of the individual payment exceeded Rs. 20,000. It was also not disputed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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

37,459/- as deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act, has been accepted in scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3), vide order dated 23/12/2016. 4.2 Subsequently, the case has been reopened u/s 148 vide notice dated 29.03.2019 (after necessary approval from higher authorities), mainly on the issue regarding availability of deduction claimed u/s 35AD

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

37,459/- as deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act, has been accepted in scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3), vide order dated 23/12/2016. 4.2 Subsequently, the case has been reopened u/s 148 vide notice dated 29.03.2019 (after necessary approval from higher authorities), mainly on the issue regarding availability of deduction claimed u/s 35AD

SPARROW SECURITY SERVICES ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JAMMU

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

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

10 Assessment Year: 2018-19 2. The matter has been examined in light of the judicial decisions on this issue. In the case of Commissioner vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd, [2009] 185 TAXMAN 416 (SC), the Apex Court held that the amendments made in section 43B of the Act i.e. deletion of second proviso and amendment in the first proviso, being

INDERJIT SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGAWARA

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

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

37,040/-( including partners remuneration and interest on capital and share in profits of the partnership as per ledger).However, the contractee (Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd ), has deducted TDS against execution of contract work by the partnership firm, but has inadvertently credited the PAN of the individual assessee with the said deduction ( when it should have been credited

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

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

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

37(1) of the Act.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that during the year under consideration, assessee had filed its return of income on 29.09.2015 declaring ‘NIL’ income. The case of the Assessee was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny. The assessment order was passed on dated 29.12.2016.The ld.AO had made the following additions: Returned Loss

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

10% to 8% as well as deletion of addition of Rs.3,00,000/- + 5,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan, wherein the assessee also preferred the Cross Objection No.38(Asr)/ 2014 in addition to that the assessee has also challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of estimating the income of the ITA Nos.38 & 27/Asr/2013

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

10% to 8% as well as deletion of addition of Rs.3,00,000/- + 5,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan, wherein the assessee also preferred the Cross Objection No.38(Asr)/ 2014 in addition to that the assessee has also challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of estimating the income of the ITA Nos.38 & 27/Asr/2013

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

37(1), of course subject to the satisfaction of the AO with regard to the genuineness of the assessee’s claim, in the year of payment/s. We decide accordingly. (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. AO 4. Ground 3 of the assessee’s appeals are in respect of disallowance of prior period expenses

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

37(1), of course subject to the satisfaction of the AO with regard to the genuineness of the assessee’s claim, in the year of payment/s. We decide accordingly. (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. AO 4. Ground 3 of the assessee’s appeals are in respect of disallowance of prior period expenses

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

37(1), of course subject to the satisfaction of the AO with regard to the genuineness of the assessee’s claim, in the year of payment/s. We decide accordingly. (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. AO 4. Ground 3 of the assessee’s appeals are in respect of disallowance of prior period expenses