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

144 r.w.s 144B is enclosed at page 06-12 of PB for your ready reference. 5. The appellant was not served with any notice and the same is evident from the fact that the order u/s 147 has been served by way of affixture. The copy of order of affixture is enclosed at page no 18. 6. That the appellant

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

144 r.w.s 144B is enclosed at page 06-12 of PB for your ready reference. 5. The appellant was not served with any notice and the same is evident from the fact that the order u/s 147 has been served by way of affixture. The copy of order of affixture is enclosed at page no 18. 6. That the appellant

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

TDS, 378 Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar, Ghaziabad Aayakar Bhavan, Punjab – 144 001 Sector-3, Vaishali, [PAN: AAHCS 0525L] Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201010 (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C. A. Revenue by Sh. S. M. Surendranath, D. R. Date of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 03.12.2021 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals are filed by the assessees feeling aggrieved

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

TDS, 378 Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar, Ghaziabad Aayakar Bhavan, Punjab – 144 001 Sector-3, Vaishali, [PAN: AAHCS 0525L] Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201010 (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C. A. Revenue by Sh. S. M. Surendranath, D. R. Date of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 03.12.2021 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals are filed by the assessees feeling aggrieved

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

TDS, 378 Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar, Ghaziabad Aayakar Bhavan, Punjab – 144 001 Sector-3, Vaishali, [PAN: AAHCS 0525L] Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201010 (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C. A. Revenue by Sh. S. M. Surendranath, D. R. Date of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 03.12.2021 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals are filed by the assessees feeling aggrieved

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

TDS, 378 Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar, Ghaziabad Aayakar Bhavan, Punjab – 144 001 Sector-3, Vaishali, [PAN: AAHCS 0525L] Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201010 (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C. A. Revenue by Sh. S. M. Surendranath, D. R. Date of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 03.12.2021 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals are filed by the assessees feeling aggrieved

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

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

section 194C of the Act as considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT (TDS) v. United Rice Land Ltd.[2010] 322 ITR 594 1. A further finding of fact is that the freight payment is Rs. 1,72,723 and none of the individual payment exceeded Rs. 20,000. It was also not disputed that

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

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

section 194C of the Act as considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT (TDS) v. United Rice Land Ltd.[2010] 322 ITR 594 1. A further finding of fact is that the freight payment is Rs. 1,72,723 and none of the individual payment exceeded Rs. 20,000. It was also not disputed that

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

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 the appeal by passing the exparte order and sustained the addition made by the A.O. Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 05/10/2018, 22/02/2019 and 08/03/2019

DAWN COTTAGE EMPORIUM,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

144 in different heads like disallowed of expenses, addition of sundry creditors and the addition of advance received from the party. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal I.T.A. No.328/Asr/2015 4 Assessment Year: 2010-11 partly and restricted the addition in following manners. For the rent payment amount to Rs.8

MEASEG. LADAKH ROADLINES ,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 143(3) for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we advert that both the appeals, have the same factual ground. With the consent of both the parties we take ITA No. 295/Asr/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 as lead case. 3. In ITA No. 295/Asr/2019 the assessee has raised the following grounds: “That the Learned Assessing Officer has without reason

LADAKH ROADLINES,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 143(3) for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we advert that both the appeals, have the same factual ground. With the consent of both the parties we take ITA No. 295/Asr/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 as lead case. 3. In ITA No. 295/Asr/2019 the assessee has raised the following grounds: “That the Learned Assessing Officer has without reason

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

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

TDS deducted accordingly), which resulted in an apparent non -disclosure of gross contract receipts to the tune of Rs.1.73 crores, as per the return filed. 4. The assessee explained the difference that the said transport bill amount of Rs.1.73 crores has been actually received on 17th April, 2015, and the same has also been considered in the gross receipts

SHRI KANCHAN KUMAR MITRA,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4 (3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

TDS amount of Rs.1,21,740/- during computation of tax. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. 3. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. During hearing none was present on behalf of the assessee. The matter is taken up with the consent

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

TDS INTEREST TDS ON INTEREST 51867 1448111.00 Cr (PAYABLE) 48 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT The payment of Rs. 6.22 lacs (on October 15 & 17, 2013) is on account of insurance in respect of foreign letter of credit (FLC) by GAPL for an on behalf of the assessee-company, claimed by the latter as an insurance

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

144 r.w.s. 147 by recording incorrect facts/reasons and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order