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

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

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

SH. JINDER PAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), AMRITSAR

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

section 271 (1)(c) because the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The AO had assessed the income of the assessee by applying flat rate of 8% on his gross receipts and assessed income on estimated basis. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while

SHRI CHANDAN BHARDWAJ,TARN TARAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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

section 271 (1)(c) because the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The AO had assessed the income of the assessee by applying flat rate of 8% on his gross receipts and assessed income on estimated basis. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while

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

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 In view of the above facts, the rental income

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

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

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

section 36(1)(viia) only provision for bad and doubtful debts was allowable as deduction. 6. That while allowing the relief of Rs. 3,53,47,000/-, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that it was a contingent liability and was not allowable as business expenditure. The P a g e | 3 ITA No. 784 & 731/Asr./2017

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

4 for both the years is in respect of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) , at Rs.596.71 lacs and Rs.670.90 lacs respectively. The disallowance, for both the years, was in fact much higher, with the ld. CIT(A) having allowed deduction to the assessee in respect of the amounts qua which tax deducted at source (TDS) had been deposited

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

4 for both the years is in respect of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) , at Rs.596.71 lacs and Rs.670.90 lacs respectively. The disallowance, for both the years, was in fact much higher, with the ld. CIT(A) having allowed deduction to the assessee in respect of the amounts qua which tax deducted at source (TDS) had been deposited

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

4 for both the years is in respect of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) , at Rs.596.71 lacs and Rs.670.90 lacs respectively. The disallowance, for both the years, was in fact much higher, with the ld. CIT(A) having allowed deduction to the assessee in respect of the amounts qua which tax deducted at source (TDS) had been deposited

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU 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

4 for both the years is in respect of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) , at Rs.596.71 lacs and Rs.670.90 lacs respectively. The disallowance, for both the years, was in fact much higher, with the ld. CIT(A) having allowed deduction to the assessee in respect of the amounts qua which tax deducted at source (TDS) had been deposited

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 (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

MR. TIRLOK NATH MAHAJAN,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

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

section 271(1) of the Act as per mandate. 4. Per contra, the Ld DR although supported the impugned order, however, he failed to rebut the contention of the counsel. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record, impugned order, written submission filed before us. Admittedly, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the facts regarding

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"

1 to 6 of appeal states that Pr.CIT has erred in passing order under section 263 of the Act, which is illegal and without jurisdiction and Pr.CIT has grossly erred in holding the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, even though the AO has carried out necessary enquiries