INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU vs. SHRI MOHD ASLAM BAGGAR, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the date of transfer of the impugned land measuring 74K 08M was considered as the year 1947, was the huge quantum of compensation received i.e. Rs 8,55,60,000/- right to be held exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) since the amount

MESERS BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

TDS has been duly deducted and deposited with the Government and Service Tax has been duly charged by them on the invoices and the same have been paid on timely basis. As per AR the profile of the employees of M/s Oxbridge International Pvt LTd and their existence has not been doubted, the nature of assistance offered and the services

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

TDS has been duly deducted and deposited with the Government and Service Tax has been duly charged by them on the invoices and the same have been paid on timely basis. As per AR the profile of the employees of M/s Oxbridge International Pvt LTd and their existence has not been doubted, the nature of assistance offered and the services

M/S SANT SHRI MAHESH MUNI JI BOREWALE EDUCATIONAL WELFARE ,MOGA vs. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( EXAMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year - 2016-17

2. That the main aims and objects of the Society are as under:- a) To promote, establish, support and maintain institutions for the promotion of education, science, literature, fine and diffusion of useful Knowledge. b) To work for education institutions and to spread education facilities in the rural, backward, semi-urban and other areas c) To control, maintain

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, at Rs. 4.67 lacs). 4.3 The question that therefore assumes significance is if the fact of the subsequent repayment (of loan/advance) relevant, i.e., in determining if the amount received from the payer-company is to be, or is not to be, considered as dividend u/s. 2(22)(e)? This is as de hors the amounts paid by the assessee

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

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

TDS was made by the Ld. AO in accordance with the reporting as per Tax Audit Report which was not added back in Computation of Income at the time of filing of Return of Income. I.T.A. No.407/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 3.3. Further, the disallowance amount of Rs. 5,28,924/- was made on account of depreciation claimed

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"

TDS under section 194C of the Act. The assessee debited Rs.5,91,030 as court fees paid for civil suit to recover Rs. Satish Kumar v. Pr.CIT- Jalandhar/I.T.A.No. 258/ASR/2019/A.Y. 14-15 Page 16 of 20 2,09,00,000 and Rs.17,53,638 against Kamaldeep Singh and M/s. Gupta Traders respectively how these are related to business activity not examined

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

11. Accordingly, the AO is directed to apply a net profit rate of 1.5% as against 5%, on the Total Turn Over estimated at Rs. 2,53,27,125/-. Thus, the impugned order of the CIT(A) stands modified in the terms indicated as above, in both the quantum appeals. ITA Nos. 32 & 34/Asr/2023 12. On identical facts, in these

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

11. Accordingly, the AO is directed to apply a net profit rate of 1.5% as against 5%, on the Total Turn Over estimated at Rs. 2,53,27,125/-. Thus, the impugned order of the CIT(A) stands modified in the terms indicated as above, in both the quantum appeals. ITA Nos. 32 & 34/Asr/2023 12. On identical facts, in these

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

11. Accordingly, the AO is directed to apply a net profit rate of 1.5% as against 5%, on the Total Turn Over estimated at Rs. 2,53,27,125/-. Thus, the impugned order of the CIT(A) stands modified in the terms indicated as above, in both the quantum appeals. ITA Nos. 32 & 34/Asr/2023 12. On identical facts, in these

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

11. Accordingly, the AO is directed to apply a net profit rate of 1.5% as against 5%, on the Total Turn Over estimated at Rs. 2,53,27,125/-. Thus, the impugned order of the CIT(A) stands modified in the terms indicated as above, in both the quantum appeals. ITA Nos. 32 & 34/Asr/2023 12. On identical facts, in these

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

2 2nd 26Q 31-10-2017 01.11.2017 18.11.2017 1 200.00 2nd 27EQ 15.10.2017 28.10.2017 03.11.2017 2400.00 12 4th 24Q 15.05.2018 31.08.2018 09.10.2018 92 18400.00 4th 26Q 15.05.2018 19.06.2018 02.07.2018 19 3800.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF LATE FEE Rs 25,200/- Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) 3. Thus, TDS-CPC has imposed a late fee u/s 234E amounting

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

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

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

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

SH. JINDER PAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), AMRITSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

TDS has been deducted thereon. The AO has also not considered the fact that the assessee has voluntarily revised the computation of income before the assessment was finalized and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 5. That no penalty notice dated 10/03/2017 has been served upon the appellant and as such penalty imposed