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

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

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

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 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 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 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 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

11,78,571/- iii. Receipts of vegetables Rs 5,00,000/- & animal fodder iv. Cash withdrawals from Rs. 67,16,786/- KCC premium CC a/c Total cash available = Rs. 103,72,036 /- as on 17.06.2013^ Therefore, Sh. Amandeep Singh had cash in hand available at more than Rs. 1 crore as on 17.06.2013 immediately before depositing cash

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

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

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

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

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

5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The relevant paragraphs of M/s 11, Corps Zone Workshop(supra) is duly inserted as below: “7. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. We find that the petitioner's central challenge viz. of non-permissibility to levy fee under section 234E of the Act till section 200A

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

5 3.1 The ld. AR combinedgrounds in argument and placed that the nature of the payment of the PF & ESI is combined with employer and employee contribution. The relevant part of the submission is extracted as below: Submissions for Ground No 2-5 a) That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4807613/- without going through

F I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

section 80 IB of a sum of Rs. 2,11,80,352/-, includes the aforesaid figures of Rs. 10,14,174/- and Rs. 91,014/-. 22.2 We heard the rival submission & observed the documents. There is factual difference in both the orders of the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR only relied on the orders of the revenue. We remit back

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

TDS returns, VAT returns, details of creditors, debtors, etc. As such, the issue of cash deposited during demonetization period and the source was duly explained by the assessee to the Assessing Officer and as such the 'financial results' along with the cash book of the assessee were properly examined and considered by the Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment. 5

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