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

sections, to come out with deliverance from the fallen condition. f) To receive donations, funds and grants in cash or in kind from government Punjab education Board, charitable trusts, general Public for running/development of school(s) or college(s) h) The society shall have power to receive, hold and possess any property including securities or any kind and to construct

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU vs. SHRI MOHD ASLAM BAGGAR, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the date of transfer of the impugned land measuring 74K 08M was considered as the year 1947, was the huge quantum of compensation received i.e. Rs 8,55,60,000/- right to be held exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) since the amount

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

15 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT basic fact that s. 2(6A)(e) uses the words ‘any payment’ which means, every payment, and s. 2(6A)(e) requires the determination of two factors, viz., whether the payment is a loan and whether at the date when the payment is made there were ‘accumulated profits’ and that

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

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

15,51,913. Undisputedly, the only strife between the parties is that per assessee it is liable to be taxed in the assessment year 2010-11 which is opposed by the Revenue who states that since it is a case of mercantile system of accounting, the amount has to be taxed in the impugned assessment year. We notice and even

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"

2 to section 263 deems the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in case order is passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made in the opinion of Pr.CIT. In our opinion, for the applicability of clause (a) of Explanation, it is necessary that the Pr. CIT must mention

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

15) and order dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act ( for AY 2017-18 ). I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 2 2. The facts and issues contained in both the years being identical, are taken up for disposal together for the sake of convenience and we take up ITA No. 103/Asr/2024, first

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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

15) and order dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act ( for AY 2017-18 ). I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 2 2. The facts and issues contained in both the years being identical, are taken up for disposal together for the sake of convenience and we take up ITA No. 103/Asr/2024, first

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

15 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC mere failure to furnish return within due date as required under section 139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F

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

15 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC mere failure to furnish return within due date as required under section 139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F

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

15 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC mere failure to furnish return within due date as required under section 139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F

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

15 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC mere failure to furnish return within due date as required under section 139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F

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

SHRI RANJEET SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), BATHINDA

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

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

TDS 35,695/- Total amount received 31.07.491/- 1.1 The assessee filed his ITR for the AY 2016-17 on 21-12-2016 showing total income at Rs. 29,77,350/- including long term capital gains of Rs. 26,62,987/-. Thereafter, the assessee revised the ITR on 27.05.2017 showing total income at Rs.3,39,360/- under the head income from

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

TDS returns, VAT returns, details of creditors, debtors, etc. As such, the issue of cash deposited during demonetization period and the source was duly explained by the assessee to the Assessing Officer and as such the 'financial results' along with the cash book of the assessee were properly examined and considered by the Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment

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

TDS and for this reason tax was not deducted at source. Complete detail of freight payment in the two units is enclosed for your ready reference. The Explanation 2 to Section 263 reads as under:- “For the purpose of section 263 of Income Tax Act an order passed by the AO shall be deemed to be erroneous

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