SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

142(1) dated 22.08.2016 (PB-17) which was replied by the assessee vide para No. 2 of which reply is placed the assessee Paper Book Page No. 18 and also detail explanation was filed vide paragraph No. 2 of explanation which is placed at the assessee`s Paper Book Page No. 25. With regard to recovery suit expenses, the learned

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

2) TMI 418 - ITAT AHMEDABAD HAKIM KHAN SUMERGADH BIBALSAR, JALORE VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-3, PALANPUR Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the notices issued u/s. 142(1) - Penalty u/s 271F - non-filing of the Return of Income - HELD THAT:- Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear

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

2) TMI 418 - ITAT AHMEDABAD HAKIM KHAN SUMERGADH BIBALSAR, JALORE VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-3, PALANPUR Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the notices issued u/s. 142(1) - Penalty u/s 271F - non-filing of the Return of Income - HELD THAT:- Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear

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

2) TMI 418 - ITAT AHMEDABAD HAKIM KHAN SUMERGADH BIBALSAR, JALORE VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-3, PALANPUR Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the notices issued u/s. 142(1) - Penalty u/s 271F - non-filing of the Return of Income - HELD THAT:- Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear

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

2) TMI 418 - ITAT AHMEDABAD HAKIM KHAN SUMERGADH BIBALSAR, JALORE VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-3, PALANPUR Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the notices issued u/s. 142(1) - Penalty u/s 271F - non-filing of the Return of Income - HELD THAT:- Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear

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

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

TDS and for this reason tax was not deducted at source. Complete detail of freight payment in the two units is enclosed for your ready reference. The Explanation 2 to Section 263 reads as under:- “For the purpose of section 263 of Income Tax Act an order passed by the AO shall be deemed to be erroneous

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

TDS) [2011] 335 ITR 287 (Pat), relied by the Revenue, directory. Further, that where the consequence/s of the breach of the time limit is not provided, the same is directory, is part of well-settled law, as explained by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in Bhakta Vedanta Swami Charitable Trust v. CIT (in WP(C) 12347 of 2005 dated

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

TDS) [2011] 335 ITR 287 (Pat), relied by the Revenue, directory. Further, that where the consequence/s of the breach of the time limit is not provided, the same is directory, is part of well-settled law, as explained by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in Bhakta Vedanta Swami Charitable Trust v. CIT (in WP(C) 12347 of 2005 dated

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

142(1) dated 21.10.2019. Further, the AR also relied upon annexure enclosed along with this notice placed at page no 27 of the paper book. It was also brought to the knowledge of the bench that during the assessment proceedings the assessee has submitted the following documents before the AO:- 1. copies of account of unsecured loans 2. TDS returns

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IV,, PATHANKOT vs. THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO. OPBANK LTD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenaandsh. Anikesh Banerjee

2 of the assessee is allowed. I.T.A.No. 542/Asr/2017 7 & C.O. No.30/Asr/2017 Ground No. (ii) of Revenue for non-deduction of tax on Advertisement Expenses:- 6. In assessment the ld. AO disallowed the advertisement expenses Rs.34,90,828/- on the ground that non deduction of TDS from the party. In argument the ld. CIT-Dr relied on the order

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

2 the assessee contests the confirmation of the disallowance in respect of provision for gratuity, at Rs.80,000 and Rs.3,70,015 for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. The disallowance for both the years as well as its confirmation, is on the basis of section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure

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

2 the assessee contests the confirmation of the disallowance in respect of provision for gratuity, at Rs.80,000 and Rs.3,70,015 for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. The disallowance for both the years as well as its confirmation, is on the basis of section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure

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

2 the assessee contests the confirmation of the disallowance in respect of provision for gratuity, at Rs.80,000 and Rs.3,70,015 for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. The disallowance for both the years as well as its confirmation, is on the basis of section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure

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

2 the assessee contests the confirmation of the disallowance in respect of provision for gratuity, at Rs.80,000 and Rs.3,70,015 for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. The disallowance for both the years as well as its confirmation, is on the basis of section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure

M/S. PMS DIESELS,,PHAGWARA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 65/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 10.07.2009 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2. The appeal raises seven grounds, which we shall take up in seritiam, with ground 1 being general in nature, warranting no adjudication. 3. Ground 2 impugns the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) at Rs.5,81,978/- on account

SH. MUZAFFER JAN PAMPORI,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

142(1) of the Act. In response, the assessee furnished the return of income on 17/01/2011 declaring an income of Rs. 6,640/-. The A.O. however framed the assessment exparte under section 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 4,61,200/-. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed