SHRI HARINDER PAL SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

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

1,35,000; that the said tenant had punctually deducted 20 per cent of the rent amount in terms of Section 194-I of the Act by remitting the rent less 20 per cent to the petitioner every month, but, in fact, had not issued the corresponding deduction certificate in Form 16A and though this aspect had also been brought

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

1) (a) (vi) is upheld and the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 8. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. 9. In course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the same submissions that the original return was wrongly filed claiming the benefit of TDS which resulted

F I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

1 & 2 general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 4. The ground nos. 3 & 4 pertains to disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 35,43,942/- u/s 80IB(11A) of the Income Tax Act on old CA unit. 4 FIL Industries P. Ltd. v. Asstt.CIT 4.1 The ld. counsel for the appellant has submitted that the similar

SHRI BALDEV SINGH ,ABOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (2), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

35 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds which are reproduced as below: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts and law in confirming the addition of Rs.8,86,320/- made by the DCIT,CPC, Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) vide order dated 11.12.2018 and computing the income

SH. MUZAFFER JAN PAMPORI,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 4,61,200/-. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal by passing the exparte order and sustained the addition made by the A.O. Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 05/10/2018, 22/02/2019 and 08/03/2019

SHRI SURINDER KUMAR ,RAMPURA PHUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (3), BATHINDA

In the result, all these appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated as above

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

1(3), Bathinda Jagdish Rai Rampura Phul [PAN: BIZPB 7070B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Surinder Kumar & Ors v. ITO Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 02.03.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: These four appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated

SHRIMATI SUDESH RANI ,RAMPURA PHUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (3), BATHINDA

In the result, all these appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated as above

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

1(3), Bathinda Jagdish Rai Rampura Phul [PAN: BIZPB 7070B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Surinder Kumar & Ors v. ITO Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 02.03.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: These four appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated

SHRI SAHIL BANSAL ,RAMPURA PHUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (3), BATHINDA

In the result, all these appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated as above

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

1(3), Bathinda Jagdish Rai Rampura Phul [PAN: BIZPB 7070B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Surinder Kumar & Ors v. ITO Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 02.03.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: These four appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated

SHRI SURINDER KUMAR ,RAMPURA PHUL vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD 1 (3), BATHINDA

In the result, all these appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated as above

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

1(3), Bathinda Jagdish Rai Rampura Phul [PAN: BIZPB 7070B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Surinder Kumar & Ors v. ITO Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 02.03.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: These four appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated

SH. SADA RAM CHAWLA,TARN TARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), TARNTARAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

1. That the Assessment Order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegally, arbitrary and contrary to the facts on records and this illegality pervades over all other grounds of appeal. That the Worthy CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the decision of Ld. AO partially. 2 2. That the Ld AO & Worthy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

section 68 of the act are satisfied with regard to loan*'of Rs 1,00,00,000/- received by the appellant from Sh. Amandeep Singh in the year under consideration and no addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- is called for u/s 68 of the act in respect of loan from Sh. Amandeep Singh and the same is hereby

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

section, the assessee has been held to be assessee in default u/s 206C of the Act for non-collection of TCS, resulting in total TCS default of Rs.8.58 lakhs (including interest u/s 206C(7) of the Act as applicable). 3 I.T.A. No. 375/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 5. The order passed by the ITO (TDS) dated 10.02.2021 has been carried

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

TDS I.T.A. Nos.189/Asr/2018&513/Asr/2019 19 Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2016-17 was deducted, and the Certificate was also duly annexed with APB. The entire amount was transacted by both the companies for business exigencies. 12. The ld. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also placed that the issue was not covered

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

TDS I.T.A. Nos.189/Asr/2018&513/Asr/2019 19 Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2016-17 was deducted, and the Certificate was also duly annexed with APB. The entire amount was transacted by both the companies for business exigencies. 12. The ld. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also placed that the issue was not covered

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

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

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

TDS was made by the Ld. AO in accordance with the reporting as per Tax Audit Report which was not added back in Computation of Income at the time of filing of Return of Income. I.T.A. No.407/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 3.3. Further, the disallowance amount of Rs. 5,28,924/- was made on account of depreciation claimed

MESERS VETERAN ENGINEERS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ZAKURA,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD 3 (3), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 44AD of the Act. The ld. AR argued that the ld. AO has enhanced turnover of the assessee by Rs.7,77,499/- and made addition of Rs.62,200/- by applying net profit rate of 8% of the said enhanced turnover computing the contract receipt of Rs.19,35,550/- as per Form 26AS without bringing any corroborative material on record

MALWA CO-OP L & C SOCIETY LTD,MUKTSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

35 of APB with details calculation of turnover of assessee. The calculation of gross receipt is extracted as follows: 4 Malwa Coop. L & C Society Ltd. v. ITO “Total contract receipts during the year 8589152.00 Less:- Deduction out of Gross Contract Receipts during the relevant A.Y. 2010-11 TDS 182181.00 VAT 343564.00 Security 425156.00 L. Cess 85886.00 Other Deduction