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

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

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

section 194C of the Act as considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT (TDS) v. United Rice Land Ltd.[2010] 322 ITR 594 1. A further finding of fact is that the freight payment is Rs. 1,72,723 and none of the individual payment exceeded Rs. 20,000. It was also not disputed that

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

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

section 194C of the Act as considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT (TDS) v. United Rice Land Ltd.[2010] 322 ITR 594 1. A further finding of fact is that the freight payment is Rs. 1,72,723 and none of the individual payment exceeded Rs. 20,000. It was also not disputed that

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS was allowed and approved both by the A O and by the Commissioner. Such illegal action of the A O is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 2. The appellant had claimed in the return exemption from tax on long-term Capital Gain of Rs. 8,32,58,783/- in respect of the agricultural land which

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

32,058/- made u/s 43D I.T.A.No. 542/Asr/2017 3 & C.O. No.30/Asr/2017 of the Act on account of interest receivable not declared as income by the assessee without appreciating the fact that assessee is not a Public Financial Institute as defined in section 43D and, therefore, interest receivable is not exempted as per section 43D. iv. On the facts

MESAGE. NORTHERN TRASFORMERS. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 329/Asr/2019 is partly

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

32,859/- which is worked out @ 2.5%. In assessment proceeding the addition was made by disallowing the different expenses total amount as of Rs.7,99,997/- which was added with the total income of the assessee. Also, the disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194C for payment to transporter amount of Rs.22

M/S SANT SHRI MAHESH MUNI JI BOREWALE EDUCATIONAL WELFARE ,MOGA vs. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( EXAMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year - 2016-17

TDS provisions or not corroborating the salaries paid through bank accounts. f. Details of all educational institutions run by the society alongwith their date of incorporation and details of affiliation obtained from the Education Board etc. g. Details of the Donations received or intended to be received and documentary evidence as regards to Grants received. h. Donation received under FCRA

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

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

32 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT dividend u/s. 2(22)(e). The only thing therefore that needs to be examined is if the same stands excluded from the purview of the ‘total income’ u/s. 2(45) of the Act. Chapter III of the Act, comprising sections 10 to 13B, specifies such incomes. Section 10(34), brought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -IV, KAPURTHALA vs. M/S PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK, KAPURTHALA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

32,000/- only Rs. 5,31,85,000/- were on account of bad and doubtful debts and the balance amount of Rs. 3,53,47,000/- was on account of Standard Assets and as per provisions of section 36(1)(viia) only provision for bad and doubtful debts was allowable as deduction. 6. That while allowing the relief

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

32 & 34/Asr/2023 12. On identical facts, in these two appeals, the appellant has challenged the CIT(A)’s orders in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 without appreciating the fact and circumstances

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

32 & 34/Asr/2023 12. On identical facts, in these two appeals, the appellant has challenged the CIT(A)’s orders in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 without appreciating the fact and circumstances

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

32 & 34/Asr/2023 12. On identical facts, in these two appeals, the appellant has challenged the CIT(A)’s orders in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 without appreciating the fact and circumstances

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

32 & 34/Asr/2023 12. On identical facts, in these two appeals, the appellant has challenged the CIT(A)’s orders in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 without appreciating the fact and circumstances

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

TDS deducted u/s 194C (in Form 26AS), under the head payment to contractor amounting to Rs. 5.28 crores. 5. In absence of any response or compliance from the assessee company, in course of assessment proceedings, to various notices issued by the AO, the assessment was completed ex-parte on a total income of Rs. 5.28 crores. 6. In course

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

TDS deducted u/s 194C (in Form 26AS), under the head payment to contractor amounting to Rs. 5.28 crores. 5. In absence of any response or compliance from the assessee company, in course of assessment proceedings, to various notices issued by the AO, the assessment was completed ex-parte on a total income of Rs. 5.28 crores. 6. In course

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

32 of the Paper Book and, thus, thisjudgment is squarely applicable. 6.5. Respectfully the reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Amrik Singh, [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (Punjab & Haryana)in which, it has been held as under: - “5. After setting out the nature of Section

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , 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

32 of the Paper Book and, thus, thisjudgment is squarely applicable. 6.5. Respectfully the reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Amrik Singh, [2015] 56 taxmann.com 460 (Punjab & Haryana)in which, it has been held as under: - “5. After setting out the nature of Section