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

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

MESERS SPEED SURYA MOVIES ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

TDS, u/s194A read with section 40(a)(ia) of Act. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee stated

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS ) WARD, AMRITSAR

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

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

4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS ) WARD, AMRITSAR

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

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

4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after

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

4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest

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

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

4 (Form- 5 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) 26Q) of F.Y.2012-13 on 19/09/2017 which was due to be filed on 15/05/2013. Therefore, it was delayed by 1588 Days. Therefore, TDS-CPC has imposed a late fee u/s 234E for 1588 days amounting to Rs. 2,53,6001- for the delay in filing of Quarterly

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

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

4 (Form- 5 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) 26Q) of F.Y.2012-13 on 19/09/2017 which was due to be filed on 15/05/2013. Therefore, it was delayed by 1588 Days. Therefore, TDS-CPC has imposed a late fee u/s 234E for 1588 days amounting to Rs. 2,53,6001- for the delay in filing of Quarterly

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

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

4 (Form- 5 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) 26Q) of F.Y.2012-13 on 19/09/2017 which was due to be filed on 15/05/2013. Therefore, it was delayed by 1588 Days. Therefore, TDS-CPC has imposed a late fee u/s 234E for 1588 days amounting to Rs. 2,53,6001- for the delay in filing of Quarterly

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

Section 154(8) makes this further clear, i.e., that any order of amendment u/s. 154(1) r/w sec. 154(4) has to be a result of a conscious decision by the concerned authority to either amend or not to amend the order sought to be rectified. The time frame stipulated thereby is, even as clarified in SBI v. ITO (TDS

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

Section 154(8) makes this further clear, i.e., that any order of amendment u/s. 154(1) r/w sec. 154(4) has to be a result of a conscious decision by the concerned authority to either amend or not to amend the order sought to be rectified. The time frame stipulated thereby is, even as clarified in SBI v. ITO (TDS

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

4 ITA No. 548 (Asr)/2016 (AY 2009-10) Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. Asst. CIT (i) - (ii) …….. (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c) or clause (d), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought

SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

section 194C of the Act. However, the perusal of records suggest that there is nothing on record that TDS was deducted on these payments. The Pr.CIT further, observed that the assessee has debited Rs.5,91,030 as court fees paid for civil suit to recover Rs. 2,09,00,000 and Rs.17,53,638 against Kamaldeep Singh and M/s. Gupta

MEASAGE POOJA FLOOR MILLS ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AMRITSAR

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

4. That the order of the ITO, Ward-TDS, Amritsar, passed u/s 201(1)/2011(1A) dated 24.03.2016 thereby creating demand of Rs. 1,11,580/- is illegal, invalid and void abinitio and the same is liable to be cancelled. Similarly the worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 5. That the authorities below did not appreciate that

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

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

4. That the order of the ITO, Ward-TDS, Amritsar, passed u/s 201(1)/2011(1A) dated 24.03.2016 thereby creating demand of Rs. 1,11,580/- is illegal, invalid and void abinitio and the same is liable to be cancelled. Similarly the worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 5. That the authorities below did not appreciate that

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

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

4. That the order of the ITO, Ward-TDS, Amritsar, passed u/s 201(1)/2011(1A) dated 24.03.2016 thereby creating demand of Rs. 1,11,580/- is illegal, invalid and void abinitio and the same is liable to be cancelled. Similarly the worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 5. That the authorities below did not appreciate that

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section 249 of the Act, reasonably and in accordance with the settled legal principles enabling condonatioin of delay in filing of statutory appeals. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without refuting the facts stated by the assessee in a affidavit explaining

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section 249 of the Act, reasonably and in accordance with the settled legal principles enabling condonatioin of delay in filing of statutory appeals. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without refuting the facts stated by the assessee in a affidavit explaining