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

TDS) had been deposited by the due date of filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1). The Revenue contests the same (vide Gd. 1 of its appeals) on the ground that the proviso to s. 40(a)(ia), introducing the leverage so as to exclude from the ambit of the statutory disallowance there-under where the payment

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

TDS) had been deposited by the due date of filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1). The Revenue contests the same (vide Gd. 1 of its appeals) on the ground that the proviso to s. 40(a)(ia), introducing the leverage so as to exclude from the ambit of the statutory disallowance there-under where the payment

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

139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure

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

139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure

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

139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure

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

139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure

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

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

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

Section 139 (5) of the Act was filed before the Assessing Officer. We answer both the question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and in favour of assessee”. Ground No. 3 9. Ground No. 3, not pressed. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 32 Assessment Year: 2018-19 10. The ld. AR argued that the assessee paidcommission during financial year

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

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

139(1) per Return dtd. 30-09-13 (3) u/s 148 (1) (2) (4) (3-4) Receipts 16192750 16141750 51000 1 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT 7. That the Ld. AO accepted the return u/s 148 as it is, as filed, for A.Y 2014- 15 and 2016-17 i.e; without making any addition, though the case was reopened on the same

SMT. BHARTI SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

139(1) per Return dtd. 30-09-13 (3) u/s 148 (1) (2) (4) (3-4) Receipts 16192750 16141750 51000 1 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT 7. That the Ld. AO accepted the return u/s 148 as it is, as filed, for A.Y 2014- 15 and 2016-17 i.e; without making any addition, though the case was reopened on the same

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

139(1) per Return dtd. 30-09-13 (3) u/s 148 (1) (2) (4) (3-4) Receipts 16192750 16141750 51000 1 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT 7. That the Ld. AO accepted the return u/s 148 as it is, as filed, for A.Y 2014- 15 and 2016-17 i.e; without making any addition, though the case was reopened on the same

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

139(1). Prayed that the addition amount to Rs. 28,91,068/- should be quashed. 3.4 Further, issue was placed by the ld. AR of the assessee that the amount of Rs.8,37,424.90 is related to employer contribution. The ld. AR explained that the I.T.A. No.40/Asr/2023 11 Assessment Year: 2018-19 said amount was paid by cheque within

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 298/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan: Aaact6167G Dy. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. The Jammu & Kashmir Circle-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bank Ltd., Corporate Head Bhawan, Railhead Complex, Quarters, M. A. Road, Jammu. Srinagar. (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) of section 139. This section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS

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

section (1) of sec. 139 of the Act, such sum shall be disallowed as deduction while computing the income of the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata "B" bench in the case of Deputy CIT, Circle-33 vs. M/s S.K.Teriwal (ITA no. 1135/Kol/2010 has held that

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

section (1) of sec. 139 of the Act, such sum shall be disallowed as deduction while computing the income of the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata "B" bench in the case of Deputy CIT, Circle-33 vs. M/s S.K.Teriwal (ITA no. 1135/Kol/2010 has held that

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

section (1) of sec. 139 of the Act, such sum shall be disallowed as deduction while computing the income of the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata "B" bench in the case of Deputy CIT, Circle-33 vs. M/s S.K.Teriwal (ITA no. 1135/Kol/2010 has held that