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

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

3(v) of section 194A, the said section is not applicable on the assessee as such the assessee/appellant cannot be treated in default under 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

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

TDS of the Amount being Deductor current F.Y Account number in which claimed this year only deducted (TAN) of the if corresponding Employer income is being offered for tax this year JLDA00106B 88,792 8,879 Apex Industries 1 2016 Private Limited JLDL00308A 47,40,561 47,406 Life Insurance 2 2016 Corporation of India I.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 10 Assessment Year

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

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 on interest 3. Details that all the unsecured loans were raised from family members DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT: 1. Copy of ITR/s of all the family members from whom unsecured loans were raised 2. Complete postal address of all the family members 16 Narinder and Company v. ITO 3. It was also brought to the knowledge

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. M/S SURJIT SINGH AND CO, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

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

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax to the extent of Rs. 1,02,52,935/- on account of claim of payment of site charges/labour charges and, therefore, not allowable as deduction. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal.” 4. Briefly the facts are that the assessee is a civil contractor engaged in constructing

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

3. During the previous year under consideration, it had earned Rs.6, 18, 29,857/-as rental income le income from a source other than from a specified business as per section 35AD of the Act. But, the treatment of rental income received from godown given on rent to PUNGRAIN as normal business income is also not correct since, business

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

3. During the previous year under consideration, it had earned Rs.6, 18, 29,857/-as rental income le income from a source other than from a specified business as per section 35AD of the Act. But, the treatment of rental income received from godown given on rent to PUNGRAIN as normal business income is also not correct since, business

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

13,80,754/- instead of Rs. 12,88,06,654/- u/s 14A(3) read with Rule 8D of the Act. The appellant craves to amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. The grounds in ITA No. 329/Asr/2018 of the assessee is as follows: “1) That the Ld. CIT(A) Jammu has confirmed the action

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

13,80,754/- instead of Rs. 12,88,06,654/- u/s 14A(3) read with Rule 8D of the Act. The appellant craves to amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. The grounds in ITA No. 329/Asr/2018 of the assessee is as follows: “1) That the Ld. CIT(A) Jammu has confirmed the action

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

13,80,754/- instead of Rs. 12,88,06,654/- u/s 14A(3) read with Rule 8D of the Act. The appellant craves to amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. The grounds in ITA No. 329/Asr/2018 of the assessee is as follows: “1) That the Ld. CIT(A) Jammu has confirmed the action

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

13,80,754/- instead of Rs. 12,88,06,654/- u/s 14A(3) read with Rule 8D of the Act. The appellant craves to amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. The grounds in ITA No. 329/Asr/2018 of the assessee is as follows: “1) That the Ld. CIT(A) Jammu has confirmed the action

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

13,80,754/- instead of Rs. 12,88,06,654/- u/s 14A(3) read with Rule 8D of the Act. The appellant craves to amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. The grounds in ITA No. 329/Asr/2018 of the assessee is as follows: “1) That the Ld. CIT(A) Jammu has confirmed the action

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

13,80,754/- instead of Rs. 12,88,06,654/- u/s 14A(3) read with Rule 8D of the Act. The appellant craves to amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. The grounds in ITA No. 329/Asr/2018 of the assessee is as follows: “1) That the Ld. CIT(A) Jammu has confirmed the action

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

13,80,754/- instead of Rs. 12,88,06,654/- u/s 14A(3) read with Rule 8D of the Act. The appellant craves to amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. The grounds in ITA No. 329/Asr/2018 of the assessee is as follows: “1) That the Ld. CIT(A) Jammu has confirmed the action

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

13 Gurjinder Singh v. Pr.CIT 3 Moreover, M/s. Haldliram Mfg Co Pvt. Ltd in their reply to AO in response to notice u/s 133(6) had stated that the said amount of rs.12866154 pertain to claims received form Apex Marketing on account of damaged goods returned to them in earlier years. It has further stated that they neither gave

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

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

13 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC under the head ‘Income from Business and profession’. The copy of return for A.Y. 2014-15 is enclosed at page no 01-02 of PB. 3. The case of the appellant was re-opened u/s 148 vide notice dated31.03.2021 on the basis of information that the appellant had high