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

TDS, at Rs. 4.67 lacs). 4.3 The question that therefore assumes significance is if the fact of the subsequent repayment (of loan/advance) relevant, i.e., in determining if the amount received from the payer-company is to be, or is not to be, considered as dividend u/s. 2(22)(e)? This is as de hors the amounts paid by the assessee

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

TDS of Rs. 85,46,350/-, which was claimed exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to query raised by A.O. regarding nature of land, the appellant filed details in respect of the land and compensation amount received explaining that the land was agricultural in nature and is situated outside municipal limits. However, the Assessing

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

22,480/- out of the total expenditure of Rs 1,01,12,400/- claimed by the appellant. 2. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the part disallowance only on presumption basis and estimation and without any material/evidence on record to substantiate that any excess payments have been made by the appellant to its sister concern namely

MESERS BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

22,480/- out of the total expenditure of Rs 1,01,12,400/- claimed by the appellant. 2. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the part disallowance only on presumption basis and estimation and without any material/evidence on record to substantiate that any excess payments have been made by the appellant to its sister concern namely

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

22 Assessment Year: 2018-19 1961. Income from sale of REC/ESCs is normal business income few the assessee and needs to be included in the business income and taxed at normal tale rather than at concessional rate. 3.5.3. The AO has rightly noted that the assessee has shown the income from sale of RECs/ESCs in P&L account

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 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

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

2. The assessee has constructed a godown during the year under consideration and rented out the same to PUNGRAIN on fixed monthly rental charges. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c) (ii) of the Act @150% of capital expenditure incurred on construction of godowns during the year. Deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act is available

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

2. The assessee has constructed a godown during the year under consideration and rented out the same to PUNGRAIN on fixed monthly rental charges. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c) (ii) of the Act @150% of capital expenditure incurred on construction of godowns during the year. Deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act is available

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

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

TDS amount and ultimately there was a refund due to assessee was a bona fide one and such bona fide belief was to be treated as reasonable cause for not furnishing return before end of assessment year - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, penalty imposed upon assessee was liable to be cancelled - Held, yes 11. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the penalty

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

TDS amount and ultimately there was a refund due to assessee was a bona fide one and such bona fide belief was to be treated as reasonable cause for not furnishing return before end of assessment year - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, penalty imposed upon assessee was liable to be cancelled - Held, yes 11. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the penalty

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

TDS amount and ultimately there was a refund due to assessee was a bona fide one and such bona fide belief was to be treated as reasonable cause for not furnishing return before end of assessment year - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, penalty imposed upon assessee was liable to be cancelled - Held, yes 11. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the penalty

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

TDS amount and ultimately there was a refund due to assessee was a bona fide one and such bona fide belief was to be treated as reasonable cause for not furnishing return before end of assessment year - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, penalty imposed upon assessee was liable to be cancelled - Held, yes 11. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the penalty

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 as submitted before the AO is placed at page no 92 of paper book. That it is pertinent to mention here that all 19 Narinder and Company v. ITO the loan raised were from family members and not from the outsiders and the same has been duly reported by the auditor at clause 28 of the audit report

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALNDHAR

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing