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

250(6) on account of failure of the appellant to respond to notices dated 11.10.2022 and 15.11.2022 without adjudicating the case on merits. 9.2 BENEFIT OF EXEPENSES NOT GIVEN AND HAS ERRED IN APPLYING COMMISSION RATE OF 5% a) That the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that the total amount withdrawn was consumed for making payment in respect

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

250(6) on account of failure of the appellant to respond to notices dated 11.10.2022 and 15.11.2022 without adjudicating the case on merits. 9.2 BENEFIT OF EXEPENSES NOT GIVEN AND HAS ERRED IN APPLYING COMMISSION RATE OF 5% a) That the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that the total amount withdrawn was consumed for making payment in respect

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

250(6) on account of failure of the appellant to respond to notices dated 11.10.2022 and 15.11.2022 without adjudicating the case on merits. 9.2 BENEFIT OF EXEPENSES NOT GIVEN AND HAS ERRED IN APPLYING COMMISSION RATE OF 5% a) That the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that the total amount withdrawn was consumed for making payment in respect

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

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 (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

SHRI SUBASH GUPTA,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, 1961 dated 24.08.2021. 2 I.T.A. No. 671/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. That on the facts and circumstances

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

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

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

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

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( 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

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( 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

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