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

5 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 sold partly ( 103400 shares ) in the financial year 2013-14 (December 2013 , relevant to assessment year 2014-15) and balance ( 143116 shares ) in financial year 2014-15 (relevant to the assessment year 2015-16) through her broker Max Growth Capital Pvt. Ltd. at an average rate of Rs.204.85

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

5 Assessment Year: 2017-18 As per section 10(10D): (10D) any sum received under a life insurance policy, including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such policy, other than— (a) any sum received under sub-section (3) of section 80DD or sub-section (3) of section 80DDA *; or (b) any sum received under a Keyman insurance policy

SHRI RANJEET SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

TDS 35,695/- Total amount received 31.07.491/- 1.1 The assessee filed his ITR for the AY 2016-17 on 21-12-2016 showing total income at Rs. 29,77,350/- including long term capital gains of Rs. 26,62,987/-. Thereafter, the assessee revised the ITR on 27.05.2017 showing total income at Rs.3,39,360/- under the head income from

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

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related to payment Rs.60,500/-. We fully relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench& the entire ground of the assessee is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication denovo. Needless to say, the assessee should

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

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related to payment Rs.60,500/-. We fully relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench& the entire ground of the assessee is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication denovo. Needless to say, the assessee should

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

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related to payment Rs.60,500/-. We fully relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench& the entire ground of the assessee is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication denovo. Needless to say, the assessee should

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

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related to payment Rs.60,500/-. We fully relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench& the entire ground of the assessee is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication denovo. Needless to say, the assessee should

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

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

Section 139 (5) of the Act was filed before the Assessing Officer. We answer both the question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and in favour of assessee”. Ground No. 3 9. Ground No. 3, not pressed. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 32 Assessment Year: 2018-19 10. The ld. AR argued that the assessee paidcommission during financial year

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That Appellant requests to add, amend or leave any grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assesseean individual (Mr. Inderjit Singh )is a partner of the partnership firm M/s Golden Auto Industries PAN: [AAKFG 9983E

DHILLON AND SIMRAN LIVER FIBRO SCAN CENTRE,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS)-1, AMRITSAR

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

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

10) . Sir, in view of filing of TDS return, its acceptance by CPC TDS and generation of TDS certificate mentioning Nature of Payment 194C, the question of levying Late Fee taking deduction of TDS u/s 194J is uncalled for, wrong and illegal. It may be added here that in Form 26Q, there is no column to fill up TDS deductible

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

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

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

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

5. After setting out the nature of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the factual matrix of the case and held that as a tangible business expediency has been established between the assessee and company, Section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked. A relevant extract from the order passed

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

5. After setting out the nature of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the factual matrix of the case and held that as a tangible business expediency has been established between the assessee and company, Section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked. A relevant extract from the order passed

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

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

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

5. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record, impugned orders. 6. That the amended law made the provision to compute fee as per section 234E in the intimation u/s 200A by Finance Act, 2015 and the same is effective from 01/06/2015. Meaning thereby, no fees could be levied u/s 234E while issuing intimation u/s 200A

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

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

5. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record, impugned orders. 6. That the amended law made the provision to compute fee as per section 234E in the intimation u/s 200A by Finance Act, 2015 and the same is effective from 01/06/2015. Meaning thereby, no fees could be levied u/s 234E while issuing intimation u/s 200A