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

8% per annum for the purpose, i.e., at Rs.2,41,415, also initiating penalty proceedings. Without doubt, there is no question of interest on these bank FDRs having not accrued for the relevant year. The assessee’s method of accounting is 10 ITA No. 548 (Asr)/2016 (AY 2009-10) Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. Asst. CIT admittedly mercantile

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"

13 of 20 7. Following the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) reiterated that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as used in section 263(1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer

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

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

8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation and intimation

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

8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation and intimation

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

8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation and intimation

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

8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation and intimation

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

8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation and intimation

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

8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation and intimation

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

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

TDS system of filing the return and receiving of orders through emails and other modes. There seems to be no malafide intention of the assessee to make delay in filing the appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vijaya Bali Babu Rao Patil v. Santaram Baburac Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 has held that, “the Court

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

TDS system of filing the return and receiving of orders through emails and other modes. There seems to be no malafide intention of the assessee to make delay in filing the appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vijaya Bali Babu Rao Patil v. Santaram Baburac Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 has held that, “the Court

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

TDS system of filing the return and receiving of orders through emails and other modes. There seems to be no malafide intention of the assessee to make delay in filing the appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vijaya Bali Babu Rao Patil v. Santaram Baburac Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 has held that, “the Court

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

TDS system of filing the return and receiving of orders through emails and other modes. There seems to be no malafide intention of the assessee to make delay in filing the appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vijaya Bali Babu Rao Patil v. Santaram Baburac Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 has held that, “the Court