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

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

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

139(1) of the Act. 3. That the proposal for revision of assessment, order dated 26.12.2018 was submitted by the erstwhile Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 I.T.A. No. 102/Asr/2022 Satvir Kaur v. Pr. CIT 3(5), Zira through the erstwhile Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Range 3, Ferozepur. On perusal of the proposal and the assessment record

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

5 3.1 The ld. AR combinedgrounds in argument and placed that the nature of the payment of the PF & ESI is combined with employer and employee contribution. The relevant part of the submission is extracted as below: Submissions for Ground No 2-5 a) That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4807613/- without going through

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

ITFAQ EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

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

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

5 I.T.A. No. 98/Asr/2023 Itfaq Educational Trust v. ITO(E) Total 90,000/- Grand Total 8,99,450/- However, neither the assessee trust has produced the evidence with regard to the above said payments nor has the AO verified during the course of impugned assessment proceedings. Hence, this aspect has remained unexplained on the part of the assessee as well

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