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

145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 13 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922] – Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts - On assessee's inability to supply addresses of purchasers who purchased goods on cash, ITO rejected assessee's books of account showing result in respect of cash sale transactions, and made addition - AAC deleted additions

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 145 of the Act. The assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings. Interest income was accordingly assessed, and penalty proceedings initiated. Under the circumstances, the AO’s satisfaction for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is plain and apparent. (b) The second item is qua the disallowance in the sum of Rs.1

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

145 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi - Trib.) Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Consequence of failure to deduct or pay (Illustrations) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Whether for purpose of levy of interest under section 201(1A) for late deposit of TDS, payment of TDS by assessee to bank would relate to date of presentation

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALNDHAR

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

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

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. 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 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

2. The appeal of the assessee has been taken for adjudication first. The briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer while relying upon the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Assessing Officer v. Pooja Construction Co. in ITA No. 750(Asr)/1992 (69 ITD 147) applied the gross profit

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

2. The appeal of the assessee has been taken for adjudication first. The briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer while relying upon the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Assessing Officer v. Pooja Construction Co. in ITA No. 750(Asr)/1992 (69 ITD 147) applied the gross profit

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRANS ASIA INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION (P) LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue

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

2,47,20,000/- and that rent of Rs 9,58,000/- was paid to Akhshra theater which is exempted from tax. The appellant further stated that the payee has reflected this amount of payment in his books of account and therefore the appellant in view of the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs CIT could not be held

THE TRANS ASIAN INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION PVT. LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ASSESING OFFICER(TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue

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

2,47,20,000/- and that rent of Rs 9,58,000/- was paid to Akhshra theater which is exempted from tax. The appellant further stated that the payee has reflected this amount of payment in his books of account and therefore the appellant in view of the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs CIT could not be held

M/S MOVIE BOX RECORDS P. LTD ,JALNDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALNDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 263/Asr/2017 is

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

section 69 of the Income Tax Act. I.T.A. Nos. 251 to 256/Asr/2017 4 &I.T.A. No. 263/Asr/2017 3. That sans any corroborative evidence found in search, revealing any purchase/sale outside the books of account to effectuate such large scale transactions, a mere certificate given to PPL to facilitate receipt of royalty, was highly insufficient to uphold the impugned addition, more