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"

13 of 20 7. Following the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) reiterated that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as used in section 263(1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer

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

section 145 of the Act. The assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings. Interest income was accordingly assessed, and penalty proceedings initiated. Under the circumstances, the AO’s satisfaction for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is plain and apparent. (b) The second item is qua the disallowance in the sum of Rs.1

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

section 234E of the Act. Hence on the aforesaid consideration and analyzation, we are inclined to delete the late fee imposed by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Resultantly the appeal i.e. ITA No. 130/Asr/2019 is allowed. ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 6 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural

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

section 234E of the Act. Hence on the aforesaid consideration and analyzation, we are inclined to delete the late fee imposed by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Resultantly the appeal i.e. ITA No. 130/Asr/2019 is allowed. ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 6 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural

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

section 234E of the Act. Hence on the aforesaid consideration and analyzation, we are inclined to delete the late fee imposed by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Resultantly the appeal i.e. ITA No. 130/Asr/2019 is allowed. ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 6 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural

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

section 234E of the Act. Hence on the aforesaid consideration and analyzation, we are inclined to delete the late fee imposed by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Resultantly the appeal i.e. ITA No. 130/Asr/2019 is allowed. ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 6 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural

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

section 234E of the Act. Hence on the aforesaid consideration and analyzation, we are inclined to delete the late fee imposed by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Resultantly the appeal i.e. ITA No. 130/Asr/2019 is allowed. ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 6 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural

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

section 234E of the Act. Hence on the aforesaid consideration and analyzation, we are inclined to delete the late fee imposed by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Resultantly the appeal i.e. ITA No. 130/Asr/2019 is allowed. ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 6 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

13. As regards ITA Nos. 29 & 30/Asr/2021 is concerned, we find that the orders u/s 200A of the Act were processed on 27th March, 2015. An amendment was brought in by the Finance Act effective from 1st June, 2015 in section 200(A) of the Act thereby empowering the Assessing Officer to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act while

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

13. As regards ITA Nos. 29 & 30/Asr/2021 is concerned, we find that the orders u/s 200A of the Act were processed on 27th March, 2015. An amendment was brought in by the Finance Act effective from 1st June, 2015 in section 200(A) of the Act thereby empowering the Assessing Officer to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act while

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

13. As regards ITA Nos. 29 & 30/Asr/2021 is concerned, we find that the orders u/s 200A of the Act were processed on 27th March, 2015. An amendment was brought in by the Finance Act effective from 1st June, 2015 in section 200(A) of the Act thereby empowering the Assessing Officer to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act while

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

13. As regards ITA Nos. 29 & 30/Asr/2021 is concerned, we find that the orders u/s 200A of the Act were processed on 27th March, 2015. An amendment was brought in by the Finance Act effective from 1st June, 2015 in section 200(A) of the Act thereby empowering the Assessing Officer to levy fee u/s 234E of the Act while

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

13,73,500/- had been received during the year.The findings of PCIT in the order passes under section 263 are place at page no 300 of paper book. 9.1 That the AO vide notice dated 21.10.2019 along with the annexure had asked the assessee to furnish copies of account of unsecured loans raised along with full narration and mode

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

TDS payment with bank, well within stipulated 'due date', however, there was one day delay in debiting amount from assessee's bank account which was apparently due to mistake of banker, no interest could have been levied under section 201(1A) on assessee; interest levied by revenue authorities was to be waived off” 3.5 The ld. AR further relied

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

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

13-14, the same rate of interest was accepted in assessment &completed under section 143(1) of the act. Therefore, concept of consistency has not been followed. 6..1. In this context Mr Singla respectfully relied of the following judgments which are placed before the bench:- i) M/s Raj Traders vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jabalpur, ITA No-91/JAB

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

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

13-14, the same rate of interest was accepted in assessment &completed under section 143(1) of the act. Therefore, concept of consistency has not been followed. 6..1. In this context Mr Singla respectfully relied of the following judgments which are placed before the bench:- i) M/s Raj Traders vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jabalpur, ITA No-91/JAB

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

TDS return and the said amendment came into effect from 1-6-2015. Thus, the intimation issued by the ld. AO under section 200A of the Act to levy late fee for belated return for the period prior to 1-6-2015 is invalid. Subsequent to the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Kerala

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

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

Tds), Ward- ... on 18 January, 2021 [ ITA No.412 & 413/Bang/2020] [In para 13 at page 6] as under:- “This view combined with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the term "members" should be construed as defined in the respective cooperative societies Act would lead us to the conclusion that the associate members should be considered as included