JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

TDS deducted accordingly), which resulted in an apparent non -disclosure of gross contract receipts to the tune of Rs.1.73 crores, as per the return filed. 4. The assessee explained the difference that the said transport bill amount of Rs.1.73 crores has been actually received on 17th April, 2015, and the same has also been considered in the gross receipts

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

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

section 36(1)(viia) only provision for bad and doubtful debts was allowable as deduction. 6. That while allowing the relief of Rs. 3,53,47,000/-, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that it was a contingent liability and was not allowable as business expenditure. The P a g e | 3 ITA No. 784 & 731/Asr./2017

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

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 the assessee claims in the shape of goods or by making payments of the said amount nor did it acknowledge the said claim which

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

section 40(a)(ia) being subsequent in time, it may well be that the assessee had, in terms of the provision as it stood for the relevant years, claimed and been allowed deduction for the year/s when the TDS stands deposited to the credit of the Central Government. The onus to satisfy the AO in this regard, i.e., that there

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

section 40(a)(ia) being subsequent in time, it may well be that the assessee had, in terms of the provision as it stood for the relevant years, claimed and been allowed deduction for the year/s when the TDS stands deposited to the credit of the Central Government. The onus to satisfy the AO in this regard, i.e., that there

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

section 40(a)(ia) being subsequent in time, it may well be that the assessee had, in terms of the provision as it stood for the relevant years, claimed and been allowed deduction for the year/s when the TDS stands deposited to the credit of the Central Government. The onus to satisfy the AO in this regard, i.e., that there

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

section 40(a)(ia) being subsequent in time, it may well be that the assessee had, in terms of the provision as it stood for the relevant years, claimed and been allowed deduction for the year/s when the TDS stands deposited to the credit of the Central Government. The onus to satisfy the AO in this regard, i.e., that there

SH.RAMESH KUMAR MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

TDS)Srinagar that the assessee is engaged in the business of sale/purchase of all types of Kandam scrap like old Kandam Vehicles, Kandam Motor Parts, Metal Scrap, Rubber Scrap, Clothing Rags, Plastic Scrap, Empty Bottles etc. The assessee made purchases through auction of Military Kandam Goods by MST Ltd. New Delhi, a Govt, of India Undertaking auctioneer of army Kandam

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

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

133 to 137/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2020-21 Executive Engineer Vs. Dy. CIT, CPC (TDS) Floriculture, Radio Colony Srinagar Rajbagh Srinagar, 190008, Jammu & Kashmir [TAN: AMRE 10520G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, CA Respondent by: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.10.2022 ORDER Per Bench: These bunch of appeals

EXEXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE ,SRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC ( TDS ), SRINAGAR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

133 to 137/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2020-21 Executive Engineer Vs. Dy. CIT, CPC (TDS) Floriculture, Radio Colony Srinagar Rajbagh Srinagar, 190008, Jammu & Kashmir [TAN: AMRE 10520G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, CA Respondent by: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.10.2022 ORDER Per Bench: These bunch of appeals

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF NCOME TAX CPC ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

133 to 137/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2020-21 Executive Engineer Vs. Dy. CIT, CPC (TDS) Floriculture, Radio Colony Srinagar Rajbagh Srinagar, 190008, Jammu & Kashmir [TAN: AMRE 10520G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, CA Respondent by: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.10.2022 ORDER Per Bench: These bunch of appeals

EXEXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE ,SRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), SRI NAGAR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

133 to 137/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2020-21 Executive Engineer Vs. Dy. CIT, CPC (TDS) Floriculture, Radio Colony Srinagar Rajbagh Srinagar, 190008, Jammu & Kashmir [TAN: AMRE 10520G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, CA Respondent by: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.10.2022 ORDER Per Bench: These bunch of appeals

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE,SRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

133 to 137/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2020-21 Executive Engineer Vs. Dy. CIT, CPC (TDS) Floriculture, Radio Colony Srinagar Rajbagh Srinagar, 190008, Jammu & Kashmir [TAN: AMRE 10520G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, CA Respondent by: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.10.2022 ORDER Per Bench: These bunch of appeals

THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL COOP BANK LTD,GURDASPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- VI,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 681/Asr/2017 (And Stay Application No. 01/Asr/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15

133,775 Interest paid to Societies -2,900,746 173,233,029 Interest wrongly posted Harial Branch (Interest Reversal on NPA wrongly posted) 4,245,414 Harchowal Branch (HO Interest) 338,239 Langah Jattan (H.O. Interest) 565,694 Ghasitpur (H.O. Interest) 3,406,266 8,555,613 FDR Interest for which 15G/15H obtained 164,677,416 On a query