M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

148, or even section 263 of the Act if requisite conditions are fulfilled. It is inconceivable, according to Sardari Lal, that in the presence of such specific provisions, a similar power is available to the I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 38 Assessment Year: 2018-19 first appellate authority. Eventually, Sardari Lal upheld the decision in Union Tyres.” The ld AR mentioned that

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"

TDS. Regarding expenses of Rs.5,91,030, the claim of business relation and expenses debited to capital account but no details are filed. Hence, these expenses were liable to be disallowed. The AO was require to make enquiry for recovery suit claim of Rs.2,26,53,638 and why these were not reflected in balance sheet. Satish Kumar v. Pr.CIT

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

section 147 of the act. Since, no addition made on the ground of reasons recorded, hence, the additions would not sustain.In support, he placed reliance on the judgement of the coordinate Amritsar Bench in the case of Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer in ITA No.274 ASR 2018 order dated Jan.16, 2019; [2019] 174 DTR 0353(Asr)Trib) where

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

section 147 of the act. Since, no addition made on the ground of reasons recorded, hence, the additions would not sustain.In support, he placed reliance on the judgement of the coordinate Amritsar Bench in the case of Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer in ITA No.274 ASR 2018 order dated Jan.16, 2019; [2019] 174 DTR 0353(Asr)Trib) where

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

section 147 of the act. Since, no addition made on the ground of reasons recorded, hence, the additions would not sustain.In support, he placed reliance on the judgement of the coordinate Amritsar Bench in the case of Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer in ITA No.274 ASR 2018 order dated Jan.16, 2019; [2019] 174 DTR 0353(Asr)Trib) where

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

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) and under section 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

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

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS and had duly deposited it as required. From the perusal of record it can be Very well worked out that there was actual movement of goods and that our client had actually production purchased the goods / wheat, which he had used for its The detail of all the purchases is as under: S. Bill Dated Amount Goods Vehicle

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

148 of the Act are illegal and bad in law. 2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, Learned ClT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act in respect of amount advanced to Sh. Parveen Kumar Sharma which stood recorded in books of accounts and duly reflected

SECURE 1 SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR

Accordingly ground no. 05 to 07 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

148 on 31.03.2021 (after necessary approval) on the basis of information contained in the ITBA Module that the assessee company has received an amount of Rs.3.26 cores in aggregate for providing security services which is further substantiated by TDS deducted u/s 194C (in Form 26AS), under the head payment to contractor amounting to Rs. 5.28 crores. 5. In absence

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SECURE 1 SERVICES PVT. LTD., JALANDHAR

Accordingly ground no. 05 to 07 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

148 on 31.03.2021 (after necessary approval) on the basis of information contained in the ITBA Module that the assessee company has received an amount of Rs.3.26 cores in aggregate for providing security services which is further substantiated by TDS deducted u/s 194C (in Form 26AS), under the head payment to contractor amounting to Rs. 5.28 crores. 5. In absence

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

148 vide notice dated31.03.2021 on the basis of information that the appellant had high value transactions in the nature of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 25286429/- in his ICICI Bank Account No 202105000180. (Please refer page no 16-45) Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 requesting the assessee to furnish explanation

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

148 vide notice dated31.03.2021 on the basis of information that the appellant had high value transactions in the nature of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 25286429/- in his ICICI Bank Account No 202105000180. (Please refer page no 16-45) Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 requesting the assessee to furnish explanation

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

148 vide notice dated31.03.2021 on the basis of information that the appellant had high value transactions in the nature of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 25286429/- in his ICICI Bank Account No 202105000180. (Please refer page no 16-45) Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 requesting the assessee to furnish explanation

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

148 vide notice dated31.03.2021 on the basis of information that the appellant had high value transactions in the nature of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 25286429/- in his ICICI Bank Account No 202105000180. (Please refer page no 16-45) Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 requesting the assessee to furnish explanation

M/S DICKSON ELECTRONICS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, ground of assessee related addition of interest amount to

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

TDS) in ITA no. 486 to 489/ASR/2014 date of pronouncement of order 12.06.2015. The respectful observations of the above-mentioned judgment in para 2 is extracted as follows: “2. As before the Authorities below, the assesse maintains that the PR was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194H of the Act. The assesse has placed reliance

SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

TDS certificates (at PB pgs 12, 13), the same, he would continue, evidence the commission earned from the said activity at a gross amount of Rs.13.61 lacs for the 2 Vikrant Kansal Prop. V. K. Teleservices v ITO relevant year, and which formed the basis for the assessee returning a business income of Rs.3,73,550 for the year

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

148 was originated in the Amritsar and assessment was completed with addition of Rs.10,31,877/- in the head of salary which was received from “Consulting Engineering Services India Pvt. Ltd” and the deposit of cash amount to Rs.7 lace which was treated as consulting income. Further the deduction u/s 80C was not allowed due to absence of documents