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

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

TDS of Rs. 85,46,350/-, which was claimed exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to query raised by A.O. regarding nature of land, the appellant filed details in respect of the land and compensation amount received explaining that the land was agricultural in nature and is situated outside municipal limits. However, the Assessing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. Tile originals of MOA/Bye-laws of the society along with the Registration Certificate. d. Copies of Bank Statements through which activities are being propagated highlighting the receipts and the different items of expenditure that are being claimed. e. Details of salary paid explaining whether the same are guided by lite TDS provisions or not corroborating the salaries paid through bank

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

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

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

c)(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

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

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

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

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing