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

d) That being a Kachha Arhtiya, the appellant only acts as an agent and earns commission from sale of fruits/ vegetables. As such, the appellant is not making independent sale and is only acting as an agent on behalf of the principle. The said contention is further proved from the fact that the cash has been deposited at different locations

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

d) That being a Kachha Arhtiya, the appellant only acts as an agent and earns commission from sale of fruits/ vegetables. As such, the appellant is not making independent sale and is only acting as an agent on behalf of the principle. The said contention is further proved from the fact that the cash has been deposited at different locations

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

d) That being a Kachha Arhtiya, the appellant only acts as an agent and earns commission from sale of fruits/ vegetables. As such, the appellant is not making independent sale and is only acting as an agent on behalf of the principle. The said contention is further proved from the fact that the cash has been deposited at different locations

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

d. It is also an undisputed fact that the electricity so generated by use of the Bio-fuels is not being sold to any other concern, but it is wholly consumed in the manufacturing activity of the appellant and this use of Bio-fuels saves the environment being an environment friendly as it reduces the carbon/heat & gas emission like carbon

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

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

D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals)-2, P a g e | 2 ITA No. 784 & 731/Asr./2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Punjab Gramin Bank Vs. DCIT & DCIT Vs. Punjab Gramin Bank Jalandhar, dated 27.09.2017, which in turn arises from

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"

D E R आदेश आदेश PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar (in short “the Pr.CIT”) dated 26.03.2019pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15, passed under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Satish Kumar v. Pr.CIT

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

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

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

d) (iv). (v) to such income credited or paid by a co-operative society (other than a co- operative bank) to a member thereof or to such income credited or paid by a cooperative society to any other co-operative society.” Thus as per the said provision the provisions of section 194A are not applicable in the case of payment

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

d) ………….. (e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after the 31st day of May, 1987, by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner

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

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

D. R. Date of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 03.12.2021 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals are filed by the assessees feeling aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘the Act’). I.T.A

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

D. R. Date of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 03.12.2021 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals are filed by the assessees feeling aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘the Act’). I.T.A

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

D. R. Date of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 03.12.2021 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals are filed by the assessees feeling aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘the Act’). I.T.A

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

D. R. Date of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 03.12.2021 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals are filed by the assessees feeling aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘the Act’). I.T.A

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

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

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

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