INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature of income for a same amount in question cannot be treated differently by the deductor and the deductee. This goes to prove that the treatment of rental income as business income is again not correct. 4 In view of the above facts, the rental income

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

section 263 of the l. T. Act, 1 9 6 1 after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. The case was reopened on the reasons that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 60,00,000 in her saving bank account maintained with the Oriental Bank of Commerce during the financial year 2010-11 and that no voluntary return

INDERJIT SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGAWARA

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

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

section 199 of the Act 61. 7 I.T.A. No. 369/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 13. From the factual aspect of the matter, it is seen that the gross contract receipts from Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. amounting to Rs.9,44,655/- has already been disclosed by the partnership firm Golden Auto Industries under PAN:[AAKFG 9983E]. On the other hand

KASHMIR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. CPC TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

TDS returns imposed late fee under section 234E amounting to Rs.163,309/- and rupees 15,200/- respectively- 3. In the written

KASHMIR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. CPC TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

TDS returns imposed late fee under section 234E amounting to " 163,309/- and rupees 15,200/- respectively- 3. In the written

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

TDS payment with bank, well within stipulated 'due date', however, there was one day delay in debiting amount from assessee's bank account which was apparently due to mistake of banker, no interest could have been levied under section 201(1A) on assessee; interest levied by revenue authorities was to be waived off” 3.5 The ld. AR further relied

SHRI HARINDER PAL SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

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

15,850/-. The party has deducted TDS on the rent paid balance amount but not deposited in the government treasury. During search proceeding, the department has acquired information that the TDS amount was not credited on behalf of the assessee and the assessment was completed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act by denying the claim of TDS of the assessee

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

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

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

TDS was made by the Ld. AO in accordance with the reporting as per Tax Audit Report which was not added back in Computation of Income at the time of filing of Return of Income. I.T.A. No.407/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 3.3. Further, the disallowance amount of Rs. 5,28,924/- was made on account of depreciation claimed

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

15% of interest and disallowed 3% of the interest paid. Interest @18% is paid for all the years & accepted by the department in the Assessment completed under section 143(3) for Assessment year 10-11, Paper Book Page no. 34-36. Also, during Assessment year 11-12 & 13-14, the same rate of interest was accepted in assessment &completed under

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

15% of interest and disallowed 3% of the interest paid. Interest @18% is paid for all the years & accepted by the department in the Assessment completed under section 143(3) for Assessment year 10-11, Paper Book Page no. 34-36. Also, during Assessment year 11-12 & 13-14, the same rate of interest was accepted in assessment &completed under

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

TDS, Jammu in respect of Shalamar, Gandhi Nagar&Jammu branches of the appellant bank. The relevant part of the order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench ITA No-206/Asr/2013 date of order 28/05/2013 is reproduced as under: "Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘I’ we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding that

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

TDS, Jammu in respect of Shalamar, Gandhi Nagar&Jammu branches of the appellant bank. The relevant part of the order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench ITA No-206/Asr/2013 date of order 28/05/2013 is reproduced as under: "Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘I’ we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding that

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

TDS, Jammu in respect of Shalamar, Gandhi Nagar&Jammu branches of the appellant bank. The relevant part of the order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench ITA No-206/Asr/2013 date of order 28/05/2013 is reproduced as under: "Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘I’ we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding that

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

TDS, Jammu in respect of Shalamar, Gandhi Nagar&Jammu branches of the appellant bank. The relevant part of the order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench ITA No-206/Asr/2013 date of order 28/05/2013 is reproduced as under: "Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘I’ we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding that

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

TDS, Jammu in respect of Shalamar, Gandhi Nagar&Jammu branches of the appellant bank. The relevant part of the order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench ITA No-206/Asr/2013 date of order 28/05/2013 is reproduced as under: "Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘I’ we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding that

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

TDS, Jammu in respect of Shalamar, Gandhi Nagar&Jammu branches of the appellant bank. The relevant part of the order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench ITA No-206/Asr/2013 date of order 28/05/2013 is reproduced as under: "Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘I’ we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding that

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

TDS, Jammu in respect of Shalamar, Gandhi Nagar&Jammu branches of the appellant bank. The relevant part of the order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench ITA No-206/Asr/2013 date of order 28/05/2013 is reproduced as under: "Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘I’ we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding that

M/S MANAGING COMMITTEE SWAMI PREMANAND MAHAVIDALYA,HOSHIARPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

15) of the I.T. Act is being pursued. xi.The details regarding number of students class-wise for the last three years. I.T.A No.476/Asr/2017 xii. Explanation regarding the section under which the earlier exemption has been claimed. Why there is a need for seeking exemption u/s 12AA where natural progression should have been claims for approval under section 10(23C) being