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

iv) The CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction on account of interest on delayed payment ofTDS/TCS without taking into consideration the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in thecase of Bharat Commercial & Industries Ltd, 98 Taxman 151 wherein, it was held that interest on delayed payment of income tax was not an allowable expenditure

M/S SANT SHRI MAHESH MUNI JI BOREWALE EDUCATIONAL WELFARE ,MOGA vs. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( EXAMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year - 2016-17

TDS provisions or not corroborating the salaries paid through bank accounts. f. Details of all educational institutions run by the society alongwith their date of incorporation and details of affiliation obtained from the Education Board etc. g. Details of the Donations received or intended to be received and documentary evidence as regards to Grants received. h. Donation received under FCRA

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

TDS are not attracted on the supply of pamphlets, banners and other stationery items to the assessee as the same does not fall in the definition of “work” by virtue of sub clause (e) of clause (iv) of the explanation of section 194C. The disallowance of Rs 34,90,828/- u/s 40a(ia) is therefore deleted.” The ld. Counsel further

THE JHINGRAN COOP MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), JALANDHAR

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

TDS on the amount paid by a co-operative society to its member. The said section is reproduced hereunder:- “Section 194A (1) Any person not being an individual ............................................................................................................................................ ded uct income tax thereon at the rates in force. Provided that an individual or a Hindu Undivid ........................................................... (2) (Omitted by the finance Act,1992 w.e.f.1-6-1992) (3) The provisions of sub-section

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. 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

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

iv). The explanation furnished by the assessee of the cash deposited during demonetization was that it was out of cash received from various persons. However, no independent verification was made by the AO from these persons mentioned in the table above. As per month-wise details filed by the assesse, NIL cash sales were made from May 2016 to October

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

iv), 3(v) and 3(vi) above, it is apparent that the AO has not made necessary enquiry and verification before passing the assessment order dated 30.12.2016. Thus, the order dated 30.12.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

17,85,714 X 2 = Rs. 35,71,428/-. Sh. Amandeep Singh had shown his gross agriculture receipts of the F.Y. 2013-14 at Rs. 55,35,649/- which is therefore not accepted since the same in not supported with any J form or any other evidence. (b) Further the source of cash deposits

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

17 Marlas was acquired by SDM 2009. The balance land of 11 Kanal and 16 Marlas had been shown “Ghair Mumkin and Karkhana” in crop year 2009-10 in the Garduri of Village Verka. The land 15 Kanal 13 Marlas comprise in Khasra no. 1034/3 was not put to use for agricultural purposes for the crop year

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

iv. The copies of Bank statements through which activities are being propagated. The receipts and the different items of expenditure that are being claimed. v.The complete details of the Donations received or intended to be received and documentary evidence as regards to Grants received. vi.Copies of the I. T Returns for the last three assessment years

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 40a(ia) states that any amount on which tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid then such sum shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits of business or profession'. d. In the present case, TDS was to be deducted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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