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

271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed. b) 3 SOT 414 (KOL.)IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’Mrs. Manju Katarukav.Income-tax Officer Section 271F, read with section 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether penalty under section 271F

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

271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed. b) 3 SOT 414 (KOL.)IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’Mrs. Manju Katarukav.Income-tax Officer Section 271F, read with section 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether penalty under section 271F

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

271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed. b) 3 SOT 414 (KOL.)IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’Mrs. Manju Katarukav.Income-tax Officer Section 271F, read with section 273B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether penalty under section 271F

SHRI CHANDAN BHARDWAJ,TARN TARAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

section 271 (1)(c) because the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The AO had assessed the income of the assessee by applying flat rate of 8% on his gross receipts and assessed income on estimated basis. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while

SH. JINDER PAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), AMRITSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

section 271 (1)(c) because the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The AO had assessed the income of the assessee by applying flat rate of 8% on his gross receipts and assessed income on estimated basis. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while

MR. TIRLOK NATH MAHAJAN,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case. The Ld. AR submitted that in the quantum appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the facts regarding the filing of computation of income showing the interest income of Rs.10, 78,701 with the details of TDS

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 17.7.2015. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, a firm in the business of sale and service of vehicles, returned its’ income for the year on 30/9/2012 at Rs.2625, setting off brought forward

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

TDS deducted accordingly), which resulted in an apparent non -disclosure of gross contract receipts to the tune of Rs.1.73 crores, as per the return filed. 4. The assessee explained the difference that the said transport bill amount of Rs.1.73 crores has been actually received on 17th April, 2015, and the same has also been considered in the gross receipts

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. Considering the all three appeals are being adjudicated together. Therefore, we are taking ITA No. 173/Asr/2017 is a lead case. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in upholding the null

V R A COTTON MILLS.,ABOHAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

TDS was effected payment amounting to Rs.1,23,96,887/- made to the appellant’s export house contractor M/s. Narendra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that order impugned herein is based on logical reasoning and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the said year on 13/3/2015, by the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 03/02/2017. (AY 2006-07) Embrocia Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy CIT 2.1 The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee-company sold its’ feed mill Unit during the relevant year for a lump-sum consideration

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the said year on 13/3/2015, by the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 03/02/2017. (AY 2006-07) Embrocia Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy CIT 2.1 The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee-company sold its’ feed mill Unit during the relevant year for a lump-sum consideration

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

section 263 has two limbs, firstly the assessment order is erroneous and secondly, it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The AR drew the attention of the bench on the relevant para of the assessment order placed at page 270- 271 of the paper book, which is reproduced below: - “The information filed, supporting documents produced and submissions made

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

TDS are not attracted on the supply of pamphlets, banners and other stationery items to the assessee as the same does not fall in the definition of “work” by virtue of sub clause (e) of clause (iv) of the explanation of section 194C. The disallowance of Rs 34,90,828/- u/s 40a(ia) is therefore deleted.” The ld. Counsel further

AARCON INDIA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 5 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

271 72,000 14,18,539 5.31 % 44AB 4 2014-15 23,65,204 1,00,000 89.216 3.77 % 44AD 5.47 % 5 2015-16 5,24,34,588 6,00,000 28,70,875 44AB 5.1 The main grievance of the assessee is that from assessment year 2011-12 to 2015-16 the assessee’s net profit was varied from