M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

TDS returns would itself bear this out. The ld. CIT(A) has, however, issued a finding of it being a case of short deduction. No contradicting material, contesting the same, has been brought on record or to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR. We, accordingly, going by the finding by the ld. CIT(A), which therefore remains unrebutted, confirm

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

TDS returns would itself bear this out. The ld. CIT(A) has, however, issued a finding of it being a case of short deduction. No contradicting material, contesting the same, has been brought on record or to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR. We, accordingly, going by the finding by the ld. CIT(A), which therefore remains unrebutted, confirm

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

TDS returns would itself bear this out. The ld. CIT(A) has, however, issued a finding of it being a case of short deduction. No contradicting material, contesting the same, has been brought on record or to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR. We, accordingly, going by the finding by the ld. CIT(A), which therefore remains unrebutted, confirm

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

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 Rs.4,57,32,318/- to M/s Zylo International Centre Pitampura Delhi related business transaction, Accordingly

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HOSHIAPUR vs. SHRI HARPINDER SINGH GILL , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act, the compensation received is eligible for exemption from Income-tax without considering the fact that assessee has acted on a pre- designed and manipulative manner in order to make evasion of taxes and hatched a conspiracy for abetment of tax evasion by way of colourful device. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

36(1)(va). The late deposit of employee’s contribution to PF and ESI works out to Rs. 1079120/- as per the following details: PF Month Date of Deposit Date of clearance Employee July 17.08.2017 17.08.2017 362229 March 18.04.2018 23.04.2018 373888 736117 ESI Month Date of Deposit Date of clearance Employee May 18.07.2017 18.07.2017 20251 June 18.07.2017 18.07.2017 39591 July

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

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

36(1) (viia) in respect to addition by the ld. AO. 6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid

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

36 are as follows: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and law in holding that the income of the assessee from letting out its godown is chargeable under the head 'income from Business' and not under the head 'Income from House Property". 2. That on the facts and circumstances

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

36 are as follows: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and law in holding that the income of the assessee from letting out its godown is chargeable under the head 'income from Business' and not under the head 'Income from House Property". 2. That on the facts and circumstances

MEASAGE POOJA FLOOR MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- TDS, AMRITSAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

36,187/- 1,11,580/- 2. 2013-14 7,53,933/- 75,393/- 27,137/- 1,02,530/- 3. 2014-15 7,53,933/- 75,393/- 18,097/- 93,490/- 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the ITO(TDS) before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions advanced