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. 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

17 taxmann.com 186 (Orissa)- Held“Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Return of income - Revised return - Assessment year 2006-07 - Whether an assessee can revise his return of income by way of filing a revised statement of income after filing original return other than by way of filing revised return as contemplated under section 139(5) - Held

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

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

17-3-1986 and Pune Bench (Supra), and considering peculiar facts of the case, we hold that admittedly, the appellant being a Kachha Arahtiya, it would be justified to 12 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC apply a net profit rate of 1.5% as against 5% applied by the AO, on the Total Turn Over estimated

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

17-3-1986 and Pune Bench (Supra), and considering peculiar facts of the case, we hold that admittedly, the appellant being a Kachha Arahtiya, it would be justified to 12 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC apply a net profit rate of 1.5% as against 5% applied by the AO, on the Total Turn Over estimated

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

17-3-1986 and Pune Bench (Supra), and considering peculiar facts of the case, we hold that admittedly, the appellant being a Kachha Arahtiya, it would be justified to 12 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC apply a net profit rate of 1.5% as against 5% applied by the AO, on the Total Turn Over estimated

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

17-3-1986 and Pune Bench (Supra), and considering peculiar facts of the case, we hold that admittedly, the appellant being a Kachha Arahtiya, it would be justified to 12 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC apply a net profit rate of 1.5% as against 5% applied by the AO, on the Total Turn Over estimated

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 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 on interest 3. Details that all the unsecured loans were raised from family members DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT: 1. Copy of ITR/s of all the family members from whom unsecured loans were raised 2. Complete postal address of all the family members 16 Narinder and Company v. ITO 3. It was also brought to the knowledge

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) , SRINAGAR

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

2. The appellant being the DDO had never before received the order under section 250 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre and came to know of the fact as on 17.02.2023, when the appellant/DDO received the phone call from the jurisdictional ITO TDS SRINAGAR regarding the initiation of recovery proceedings of outstanding demand of Rs 17

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

2. The appellant being the DDO had never before received the order under section 250 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre and came to know of the fact as on 17.02.2023, when the appellant/DDO received the phone call from the jurisdictional ITO TDS SRINAGAR regarding the initiation of recovery proceedings of outstanding demand of Rs 17

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

2. The appellant being the DDO had never before received the order under section 250 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre and came to know of the fact as on 17.02.2023, when the appellant/DDO received the phone call from the jurisdictional ITO TDS SRINAGAR regarding the initiation of recovery proceedings of outstanding demand of Rs 17

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

DHILLON AND SIMRAN LIVER FIBRO SCAN CENTRE,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS)-1, AMRITSAR

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

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

2. Sir, reference is drawn to a recent decision dt.17/05/2023 of ITAT Ahmedabad 'A' Bench, Ahmedabad ITA No.127/Ahd/2022 in the case of Kanta Govind Singh Vs ACIT CPC TDS Ghaziabad. (Copy enclosed at Page S.No.14 to 17), the relevant Para 8 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant

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 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. 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