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

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

250 has totally ignored the email id registered on the E-filling portal as aogulmarg@gmail.com and has sent the orders on the email id of the TIN FACILIATATION CENTRE which caused late communication to DDO and late filing of appeal in turn. Considering the reasonable cause, we condone 4 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( henceforth the Act ) both dated 29.01.2024 , which has emanated from the orders of AO, Circle Ferozepur, dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act (for A.Y. 2014- 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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( henceforth the Act ) both dated 29.01.2024 , which has emanated from the orders of AO, Circle Ferozepur, dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act (for A.Y. 2014- 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

SECURE 1 SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR

Accordingly ground no. 05 to 07 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961. 2. There is no appearance by the assesee or his counsel in spite of repeated calls neither in physical mode nor in virtual. No adjournment application has been filed either

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SECURE 1 SERVICES PVT. LTD., JALANDHAR

Accordingly ground no. 05 to 07 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961. 2. There is no appearance by the assesee or his counsel in spite of repeated calls neither in physical mode nor in virtual. No adjournment application has been filed either

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

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. 5

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)

5. The AR argued that the appellant assessee being a government institution was never really required to deduct the TDS on payments made on account of setting/printing of question papers, answer sheets and evaluation of examinations. Therefore, the demand of ₹24,27,392/- raised by the income tax department has been wrongfully created as TDS was rightly deducted as well

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)

5. The AR argued that the appellant assessee being a government institution was never really required to deduct the TDS on payments made on account of setting/printing of question papers, answer sheets and evaluation of examinations. Therefore, the demand of ₹24,27,392/- raised by the income tax department has been wrongfully created as TDS was rightly deducted as well

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

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

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, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering