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

5. Ground 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

5. Ground 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

5. Ground 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

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

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

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 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

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

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, 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

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

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

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

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