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

8. The ld. AR further respectfullyrelied on the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court which are as follows: - 8.1. The relincewas placed on following judgments related nature of income as capital receipt:- 8.1.1. Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd.v.Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [2013] 40 taxmann.com 171 (Chennai - Trib.) “15. This leaves us with the issue regarding addition

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

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

8-1979.” 2. Moody's Analytics Knowledge Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v.Income-tax Officer (TDS), Circle- 2(1), [2020] 113 taxmann.com 448 (Bangalore - Trib.) Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Consequence of failure to deduct or pay (Interest under section 201(1A)) - Assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 - Assessee-company remitted

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

13,906/- made by the AO on account of compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land as Short Term Capital Gain claimed by assessee as exempt income under RFCTLAAR Act on the basis that the circumstances in which the appellant had purchased the land as highlighted by the AO in his order are not at all relevant to decide

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IV,, PATHANKOT vs. THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO. OPBANK LTD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenaandsh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS are not attracted on the supply of pamphlets, banners and other stationery items to the assessee as the same does not fall in the definition of “work” by virtue of sub clause (e) of clause (iv) of the explanation of section 194C. The disallowance of Rs 34,90,828/- u/s 40a(ia) is therefore deleted.” The ld. Counsel further

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

8 I.T.A. No. 10/Asr/2020 Dy. CIT v. Raj Rani Arora the depositors out of cash withdrawals from KCC account earlier and from the sale of produce of agriculture land. Sh. Amandeep Singh was the owner of 25 acre agriculture land and had taken 25 acre on lease from Sh. Harpal Singh. Sh. Amandeep Singh deposited

DHILLON AND SIMRAN LIVER FIBRO SCAN CENTRE,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS)-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

13) Further, it is submitted that TDS return on Form No.26Q was filed u/s 194C and the same was processed by CPC TDS and TDS Certificate on Form N0.I6A was issued showing 'Nature of Payment - 194C'. (Refer Copy of TDS return Page S.No.7 to 9 and Form 16A Page S.No.10) . Sir, in view of filing of TDS return

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

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

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 in the term "members" used in sec.194A

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

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

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, 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

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