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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, is bad in law as the same has been disposed off without examining the merits of the case. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4807613/- on account of employer and employee contribution paid after the due date as per statute by not appreciating that the same

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

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

TDS) 2. The Ld. AR requested condonation of the Delay of 311 days explaining the reasons for delay in written application which reads as under: “2. The appellant being the DDO had never before received the order under section 250

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

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

TDS) 2. The Ld. AR requested condonation of the Delay of 311 days explaining the reasons for delay in written application which reads as under: “2. The appellant being the DDO had never before received the order under section 250

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

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

TDS) 2. The Ld. AR requested condonation of the Delay of 311 days explaining the reasons for delay in written application which reads as under: “2. The appellant being the DDO had never before received the order under section 250

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

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

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2015-16. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. CPC-TDS, (in brevity the ld. AO) order passed u/s 200A of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: I.T.A. No. 189/Asr/2022 2 Assessment Year: 2015-16 “1. THE LATE

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,JK BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS vs. ITO (TDS), SRINAGAR, ITO (TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

section 250 of the 4 I.T.A. No. 237 & 238/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 and 2013-14 Income Tax Act common 1961, during the proceedings. Under the circumstances, he was compelled to believe that appellant has nothing to submit against the addition made by the assessing officer and same was confirmed. In our view, the act of the Addl

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,JK BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS vs. ITO (TDS), SRINAGAR, SILK FACTORY ROAD SRINAGAR

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

section 250 of the 4 I.T.A. No. 237 & 238/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 and 2013-14 Income Tax Act common 1961, during the proceedings. Under the circumstances, he was compelled to believe that appellant has nothing to submit against the addition made by the assessing officer and same was confirmed. In our view, the act of the Addl

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (in brevity the Act) for A.Y. 2013-14. The impugned order was originated from the order of the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-VI, Pathankot (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act date of order 29.03.2016. The revenue has taken the following grounds

DAWN COTTAGE EMPORIUM,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

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

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. 2010-11.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Dy. I.T.A. No.328/Asr/2015 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-3, Srinagar, [in brevity ‘ the AO’] order passed u/s 144of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds

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

250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 dated 25.04.2024which has arisen from the order of the AO, CPC, Bengaluru dated 17.12.2020 passed u/s 154of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 369/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. That on facts and circumstances

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

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

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608 to 610/Asr/2019 2 Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)- Jalandhar the order passed u/s 143(3)& 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. In the outset, we advert that

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

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

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608 to 610/Asr/2019 2 Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)- Jalandhar the order passed u/s 143(3)& 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. In the outset, we advert that

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

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

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608 to 610/Asr/2019 2 Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)- Jalandhar the order passed u/s 143(3)& 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. In the outset, we advert that

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS,), JALANDHAR

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

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608 to 610/Asr/2019 2 Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)- Jalandhar the order passed u/s 143(3)& 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. In the outset, we advert that

PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the ITO (TDS), Jalandhar passed u/s 206C(6A) of the Act, 1961 dated 10.02.2021. 2 I.T.A. No. 375/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 2. There are seven grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal and the main objection of the assessee is that the appeal

FIRST INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.46/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. 2012-13. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ITO Ward-Ward II (1),Jalandhar, [in brevity ‘the AO’] order passed u/s 154of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following ground: I.T.A. No.46/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 “1. That having

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

250 dt. 31.01.2023 bearing DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049278292(1) refusing to reduce Late Fee u/s 234E charged at Rs.44840/= as against Rs.8968/= payable being the maximum TDS deductible u/s 194C. Detailed facts of the case along with written submissions were filed before CIT (Appeals) NFAC Delhi dt. 20/01/2023 and for sake of brevity, the same are not being repeated. (Refer

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

250, it has been held that the advance given during the ordinary course of business for business expediency could not be covered under the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. From the above narrated facts, the business expediency is amply proved on record. It is also a fact that the agreement has not been reported or doubted