SHRI CHANDAN BHARDWAJ,TARN TARAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, 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

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

13) of the Act, and hence, it has to be treated as business of the Appellant. I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 2 6.2. The AO has rejected the claim of deduction made under section 35AD(8)(C)(ii) of the Act, by stating that the income from warehousing is derived from house property

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

13) of the Act, and hence, it has to be treated as business of the Appellant. I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 2 6.2. The AO has rejected the claim of deduction made under section 35AD(8)(C)(ii) of the Act, by stating that the income from warehousing is derived from house property

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

c) That the same facts have been admitted by the AO that the deposits in the bank account are not the turnover of the assessee which is visualized from the fact that the AO has not invoked the penalty u/s 271B i.e. failure to get the accounts audited meaning thereby that the AO has taken into consideration the binding circular

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

c) That the same facts have been admitted by the AO that the deposits in the bank account are not the turnover of the assessee which is visualized from the fact that the AO has not invoked the penalty u/s 271B i.e. failure to get the accounts audited meaning thereby that the AO has taken into consideration the binding circular

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

c) That the same facts have been admitted by the AO that the deposits in the bank account are not the turnover of the assessee which is visualized from the fact that the AO has not invoked the penalty u/s 271B i.e. failure to get the accounts audited meaning thereby that the AO has taken into consideration the binding circular

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

c) That the same facts have been admitted by the AO that the deposits in the bank account are not the turnover of the assessee which is visualized from the fact that the AO has not invoked the penalty u/s 271B i.e. failure to get the accounts audited meaning thereby that the AO has taken into consideration the binding circular

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 17.7.2015. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, a firm in the business of sale and service of vehicles, returned its’ income for the year on 30/9/2012 at Rs.2625, setting off brought forward

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

c. The assessee is maintaining complete record viz a viz cashbook and ledger, which are audited and no defects have been pointed by the DRP/Ld. AO in day to day of maintenance of books of accounts. I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 18 Assessment Year: 2018-19 d. It is also an undisputed fact that the electricity so generated

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

TDS deducted accordingly), which resulted in an apparent non -disclosure of gross contract receipts to the tune of Rs.1.73 crores, as per the return filed. 4. The assessee explained the difference that the said transport bill amount of Rs.1.73 crores has been actually received on 17th April, 2015, and the same has also been considered in the gross receipts

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

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

section 10 is unconditionally exempt and they are not statutorily required to file return of income as per Sec. 139 of the IT Act, therefore, there would be no requirement for tax deduction at source since their income any way is exempt under the income tax act. We find that as the assessee bank was conveyed by PTU that

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

c) to (f) of section 200A(1) of the Act is prospective in nature. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter to amend the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Following common ground of appeal nos. 1 to 6 and 7 to 10 have been raised in all the appeals. Ground

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

c) to (f) of section 200A(1) of the Act is prospective in nature. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter to amend the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Following common ground of appeal nos. 1 to 6 and 7 to 10 have been raised in all the appeals. Ground

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

c) to (f) of section 200A(1) of the Act is prospective in nature. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter to amend the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Following common ground of appeal nos. 1 to 6 and 7 to 10 have been raised in all the appeals. Ground

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

c) to (f) of section 200A(1) of the Act is prospective in nature. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter to amend the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Following common ground of appeal nos. 1 to 6 and 7 to 10 have been raised in all the appeals. Ground

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

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

section 201 (1) & 201 (1 A) of the I.T. Act,1961. Following the said judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, this hon’ble Bench {ITAT Amritsar Bench} in the case of The Rurkee Co op Agri M/P Society Ltd; VPO: Rurkee Vs Jt CIT(OSD) Phagwara circle, Phagwara [ ITAT No 459(ASR)/2012/A.Y 2009-10 ] has also held

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

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

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

c), (d) & (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from 1-6-2015 and therefore the authority issuing intimation u/s. 200A of the Act while processing return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act, could not levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of statement of TDS filed prior to 1

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

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

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

c), (d) & (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from 1-6-2015 and therefore the authority issuing intimation u/s. 200A of the Act while processing return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act, could not levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of statement of TDS filed prior to 1