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

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 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 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

M/S. IQBAL MEMORIAL TRUST ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

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

4 Iqbal Memorial Trust v. ITO In effect thus, post 1st June 2015, in the course of processing of a TDS “8. statement and issuance of intimation under section

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

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

4. Facts as per records are that the appellant has paid interest exceeding Rs. 5,000/- to non-members/nominal member without deducting TDS. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing that it is very clear in this regard under Section

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

TDS payment with bank, well within stipulated 'due date', however, there was one day delay in debiting amount from assessee's bank account which was apparently due to mistake of banker, no interest could have been levied under section 201(1A) on assessee; interest levied by revenue authorities was to be waived off” 3.5 The ld. AR further relied

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

Section 40(a)(ia) and Additional ground of assessee:- 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. AO. The ld. counsel submitted the written submission which is kept in the record. Related to the deduction of 40(a)(ia) the assessee had paid rent to the different parties. The remand report was called

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

TDS immediately upon receipt of intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That Appellant requests

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

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

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

TDS amount to Rs.1,47,454/- and I.T.A. No. 189/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2015-16 late filing fee U/s 234E amount to Rs.1,67,750/-. So, accordingly, the calculation of demand amount as per the revenue is inserted as below: 8. The assessee is only for liable to late filing fee u/s 234E is Rs.1,67,750/-. After receiving this

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

4 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 case, has been initiated (on the basis of information uploaded by the Investigation Wing, Jalandhar , on insight portal), vide issue of notice u/s 148 dated 30/03/2021 , on the legal heir Mr C.S Marwaha ( son of the deceased assessee , because the assessee has unfortunately expired by then ) , and in response

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

4 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 case, has been initiated (on the basis of information uploaded by the Investigation Wing, Jalandhar , on insight portal), vide issue of notice u/s 148 dated 30/03/2021 , on the legal heir Mr C.S Marwaha ( son of the deceased assessee , because the assessee has unfortunately expired by then ) , and in response

DHILLON AND SIMRAN LIVER FIBRO SCAN CENTRE,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS)-1, AMRITSAR

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

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

4. We have heard the rival contention, perused the material on record, the impugned order and written submission filed. It is seen that the assessee has deduced and deposited the TDS on the date of deduction of TDS, i.e., 07.09.2018. The ld. AR contended that however, there was a procedural error occurred in filing the TDS return on account

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

4. That the assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) vide order dated 22.03.2022 making an addition of Rs. 1095406/- i.e. net profit @ 5% by treating the total bank deposits of Rs. 25327125/- as turnover. The copy of assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B is enclosed at page