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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

5. In order to appraise the activities and whether the same' were in sync with the stated objects an opportunity of personal hearing was accorded on, 09.05.2017 and the applicant was requested to file, the following details/ clarifications: i. Details of property vested in the society, as envisaged u/s 11 of the I. T. Act, income from which is sought

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

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. 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

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

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 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

5 of 1908), relating to appeals to the High Court shall, as far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under this section.’ (emphasis, supplied) The Hon'ble Court might as well have declined admission, stating that no substantial question of law arises out of the order by the Tribunal. That it went through the Tribunal’s order

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

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

5. That both assessee and the revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘A.R’) for the assessee submitted that as PTU had submitted letters with the assessee bank therein claiming that its income was exempt under Sec. 10(23C)(iiiab) and thus TDS

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

10 ITA No. 548 (Asr)/2016 (AY 2009-10) Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. Asst. CIT admittedly mercantile. In fact, section 145 of the Act, as substituted by Finance Act, 1995, w.e.f. 01.04.1997, proscribes following a mixed or hybrid system of accounting, so that the books of account have to be maintained following either mercantile or cash method

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

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALNDHAR

10. School, Jalandhar vs. ACIT, CPV Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad in ITA Nos.16, 17 & 18/Asr/2019 decided on 25.07.2019 analyzed the provisions of law and also made reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs UOI (Supra) and ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 5 (A.Ys

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

10. School, Jalandhar vs. ACIT, CPV Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad in ITA Nos.16, 17 & 18/Asr/2019 decided on 25.07.2019 analyzed the provisions of law and also made reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs UOI (Supra) and ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 5 (A.Ys

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

10. School, Jalandhar vs. ACIT, CPV Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad in ITA Nos.16, 17 & 18/Asr/2019 decided on 25.07.2019 analyzed the provisions of law and also made reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs UOI (Supra) and ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 5 (A.Ys

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

10. School, Jalandhar vs. ACIT, CPV Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad in ITA Nos.16, 17 & 18/Asr/2019 decided on 25.07.2019 analyzed the provisions of law and also made reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs UOI (Supra) and ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 5 (A.Ys