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

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

4 for both the years is in respect of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) , at Rs.596.71 lacs and Rs.670.90 lacs respectively. The disallowance, for both the years, was in fact much higher, with the ld. CIT(A) having allowed deduction to the assessee in respect of the amounts qua which tax deducted at source (TDS) had been deposited

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

4 for both the years is in respect of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) , at Rs.596.71 lacs and Rs.670.90 lacs respectively. The disallowance, for both the years, was in fact much higher, with the ld. CIT(A) having allowed deduction to the assessee in respect of the amounts qua which tax deducted at source (TDS) had been deposited

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

4 for both the years is in respect of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) , at Rs.596.71 lacs and Rs.670.90 lacs respectively. The disallowance, for both the years, was in fact much higher, with the ld. CIT(A) having allowed deduction to the assessee in respect of the amounts qua which tax deducted at source (TDS) had been deposited

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

4 for both the years is in respect of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) , at Rs.596.71 lacs and Rs.670.90 lacs respectively. The disallowance, for both the years, was in fact much higher, with the ld. CIT(A) having allowed deduction to the assessee in respect of the amounts qua which tax deducted at source (TDS) had been deposited

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)

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 provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee

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

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

M/S MANAGING COMMITTEE SWAMI PREMANAND MAHAVIDALYA,HOSHIARPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

TDS provisions or not? . xv. Provide the copy of financial statements for the last three financial years i.e. from F.Y. 2013-14 t0 F.Y. 2015-16. xvi. The note on activities of the society. xvii.Taxability in the case along with full ITR with computation for A.Y. 2014-15 t0 2016-17. xviii. Explanation of the nature of various funds reflected

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

TDS by relying on the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata-B Bench in case of DCIT Circle-33 Vs. M/s S.K. Teriwal and ignoring the jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Order dated 02.02.2017 in ITA No. 74 ad 137 (Asr)/2015 for the A. Y. 2010.11 and 2011-12 in case of this assessee. 10.1. The observation of CIT(A) in page

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

TDS by relying on the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata-B Bench in case of DCIT Circle-33 Vs. M/s S.K. Teriwal and ignoring the jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Order dated 02.02.2017 in ITA No. 74 ad 137 (Asr)/2015 for the A. Y. 2010.11 and 2011-12 in case of this assessee. 10.1. The observation of CIT(A) in page

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

TDS by relying on the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata-B Bench in case of DCIT Circle-33 Vs. M/s S.K. Teriwal and ignoring the jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Order dated 02.02.2017 in ITA No. 74 ad 137 (Asr)/2015 for the A. Y. 2010.11 and 2011-12 in case of this assessee. 10.1. The observation of CIT(A) in page

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

TDS by relying on the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata-B Bench in case of DCIT Circle-33 Vs. M/s S.K. Teriwal and ignoring the jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Order dated 02.02.2017 in ITA No. 74 ad 137 (Asr)/2015 for the A. Y. 2010.11 and 2011-12 in case of this assessee. 10.1. The observation of CIT(A) in page

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

TDS by relying on the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata-B Bench in case of DCIT Circle-33 Vs. M/s S.K. Teriwal and ignoring the jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Order dated 02.02.2017 in ITA No. 74 ad 137 (Asr)/2015 for the A. Y. 2010.11 and 2011-12 in case of this assessee. 10.1. The observation of CIT(A) in page

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

TDS by relying on the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata-B Bench in case of DCIT Circle-33 Vs. M/s S.K. Teriwal and ignoring the jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Order dated 02.02.2017 in ITA No. 74 ad 137 (Asr)/2015 for the A. Y. 2010.11 and 2011-12 in case of this assessee. 10.1. The observation of CIT(A) in page

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

TDS by relying on the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata-B Bench in case of DCIT Circle-33 Vs. M/s S.K. Teriwal and ignoring the jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Order dated 02.02.2017 in ITA No. 74 ad 137 (Asr)/2015 for the A. Y. 2010.11 and 2011-12 in case of this assessee. 10.1. The observation of CIT(A) in page