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

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 is to be imposed as per law prevailing on date of default - Held, yes - Whether

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

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 is to be imposed as per law prevailing on date of default - Held, yes - Whether

THE JHINGRAN COOP MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), JALANDHAR

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

TDS on the amount paid by a co-operative society to its member. The said section is reproduced hereunder:- “Section 194A (1) Any person not being an individual ............................................................................................................................................ ded uct income tax thereon at the rates in force. Provided that an individual or a Hindu Undivid ........................................................... (2) (Omitted by the finance Act,1992 w.e.f.1-6-1992) (3) The provisions of sub-section

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 @ 20%. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short LIC) had deducted the TDS on the maturity amount u/s 194DA of the Act. The ld. AO rejected the assessee’s claim and added back the entire amount of Rs.47,40,561/- as total income of the assessee. The ld. AO in processing of return rejected

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

3 A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of Taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other

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

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

3 ITAs No.591/ASR/2017 and 455/ASR/2018 proceeded to impose penalty on the difference between contract receipt shown in form 26AS and credited shown in books of account. The AO has further erred in law and on facts while imposing penalty on the alleged income assessed on estimated basis and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 4. That

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

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

3 ITAs No.591/ASR/2017 and 455/ASR/2018 proceeded to impose penalty on the difference between contract receipt shown in form 26AS and credited shown in books of account. The AO has further erred in law and on facts while imposing penalty on the alleged income assessed on estimated basis and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 4. That

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

Section 139 (5) of the Act was filed before the Assessing Officer. We answer both the question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and in favour of assessee”. Ground No. 3 9. Ground No. 3, not pressed. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 32 Assessment Year: 2018-19 10. The ld. AR argued that the assessee paidcommission during financial year

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

B, Ward-1(3), Jammu Ludhiana-141003 PAN: AAAHT5728E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. Gaurav Sharma, CA Revenue by : Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15/06/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20/06/2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal, is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 28/11/2022

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

3 & 169/Asr/2018 by the assessee and no defects have been found and neither there is invoking of proviso to section 145 and, therefore, the applicability of section 40A(2)(b) is not proper. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. Brief Facts 1

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

3 & 169/Asr/2018 by the assessee and no defects have been found and neither there is invoking of proviso to section 145 and, therefore, the applicability of section 40A(2)(b) is not proper. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. Brief Facts 1

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

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

1 200.00 2nd 27EQ 15.10.2017 28.10.2017 03.11.2017 2400.00 12 4th 24Q 15.05.2018 31.08.2018 09.10.2018 92 18400.00 4th 26Q 15.05.2018 19.06.2018 02.07.2018 19 3800.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF LATE FEE Rs 25,200/- Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) 3. Thus, TDS-CPC has imposed a late fee u/s 234E amounting to Rs. 25,200/- for the delay in filing of Quarterly

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 on interest 3. Details that all the unsecured loans were raised from family members DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT: 1. Copy of ITR/s of all the family members from whom unsecured loans were raised 2. Complete postal address of all the family members 16 Narinder and Company v. ITO 3. It was also brought to the knowledge

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

TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature of income for a same amount in question cannot be treated differently by the deductor and the deductee. This goes to prove that the treatment of rental income as business income is again not correct. 4 In view of the above facts, the rental income

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

TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature of income for a same amount in question cannot be treated differently by the deductor and the deductee. This goes to prove that the treatment of rental income as business income is again not correct. 4 In view of the above facts, the rental income

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

3 ITO v. Mohd. Aslam Baggar compensation received from J&K Govt. was in respect of the rural agricultural land situated at village Chinore, Jammu which was acquired by the Collector Land Acquisition Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu and that the said payment was received in the year 2014 after TDS of Rs. 85,46,350/-, which was claimed exempt

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

b) of the Income Tax Act. As per section 43B of the Act certain deductions are admissible only on payment basis. It is observed by the Board that some field officers disallow employer’s contributions to provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees, by invoking the provisions of section

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

1) of sec.139. This sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to the Govt, account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under the various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared