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

1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure - Held

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

1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure - Held

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

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

1) of I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 6 the Act. since the presence of business is absent in the present case, which however, is an elementary concept for an income to fall under the head profits & gains of business or profession. Section 28 of the Act is reproduced as under- "28 The following 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

1) of I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 6 the Act. since the presence of business is absent in the present case, which however, is an elementary concept for an income to fall under the head profits & gains of business or profession. Section 28 of the Act is reproduced as under- "28 The following income

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

1) of the Act before delivery of the statement under Section 200(3) of the Act. If the assessee fails to pay the fee for the periods of delay, then the assessing authority has all the powers to levy fee while processing the statement under Section 200A of the Act by making adjustment after 01.06.2015." 5.5 Similarly, Hon’ble ITAT

THE JHINGRAN COOP MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), JALANDHAR

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

section 80-P(2)(a)(i) must therefore, be construed in the context of the provisions of the law enacted by the state Legislature under which the cooperative society claiming exemption has been formed. 11. It is further noted that the CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi in the assesse’s own case for the proceeding in respect of the Assessment Year

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

1. The residential land measuring 120.51 Sq yards of the assessee was acquired under National Highway Act, 1956 vide notification dated 04.02.2014/award has been given on 07.11.2014 [para 5.3.1 of the order of the CIT(A) and para 6 on page 6 of order of the AO] and the assessee received the following compensation through bank on 19.05.2015. Compensation

SHRI SUBASH GUPTA,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

1,81,17,500/-for the purchase of property from M3M India Pvt. Ltd., reflected in Form 26AS. Despite multiple opportunities, the appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations regarding the source of this investment. The AO, relying on the available material and in the absence of a credible explanation, invoked Section 69, treating the investment as unexplained and assessed

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

11 Assessment Year: 2018-19 said amount was paid by cheque within the time limit as per the stipulated due date of relevant Acts. But the cheque was cleared after the due date of the relevant act. The ld. AR invited our attention in APB page 122 related to confirmation from the bank for presenting the cheque in the relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HOSHIAPUR vs. SHRI HARPINDER SINGH GILL , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS, and Large Increase in capital. 4 ITO v. Harpinder Singh Gill Being not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessment for the A.Y. 2018-19 was completed by the AO on 30.12.2019 at total income of Rs. 3,05,77,966/-. 4. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering