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

2 the assessee contests the confirmation of the disallowance in respect of provision for gratuity, at Rs.80,000 and Rs.3,70,015 for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. The disallowance for both the years as well as its confirmation, is on the basis of section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure

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

2 the assessee contests the confirmation of the disallowance in respect of provision for gratuity, at Rs.80,000 and Rs.3,70,015 for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. The disallowance for both the years as well as its confirmation, is on the basis of section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure

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

2 the assessee contests the confirmation of the disallowance in respect of provision for gratuity, at Rs.80,000 and Rs.3,70,015 for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. The disallowance for both the years as well as its confirmation, is on the basis of section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure

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

2 the assessee contests the confirmation of the disallowance in respect of provision for gratuity, at Rs.80,000 and Rs.3,70,015 for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. The disallowance for both the years as well as its confirmation, is on the basis of section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. M/S SURJIT SINGH AND CO, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had violated provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax to the extent of Rs. 1,02,52,935/- on account of claim of payment of site charges/labour charges and, therefore

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. SH. MOHAN LAL, BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 170/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pan: Aajpl8560B Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Prop. Ward-1(2), Bathinda. M/S Ramji Dass Bko, Vill. Bhagiwander, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. (Appellant) (Respondent)

2,58,000/- made to Charna Singh on account of Nikasi, the Assessing Officer worked out the manufacture of bricks to the tune of 3582354/- whereas the assessee had shown Nikasi of bricks at 2184535/- and therefore the Ld. Assessing Officer had rightly made the additions for unrecorded sales. The Ld. DR further submitted that the other additions made

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

TDS u/s 194C of the Act related to payment of freight but the assessee has submitted the judgment of jurisdictional High Court and respectfully considering the order of Hon’able High Court, the addition u/s 40A(3) is liable to be rejected. 10.2. All the other issue in Ground no-4, related to loan by converting share application money amount

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

TDS u/s 194C of the Act related to payment of freight but the assessee has submitted the judgment of jurisdictional High Court and respectfully considering the order of Hon’able High Court, the addition u/s 40A(3) is liable to be rejected. 10.2. All the other issue in Ground no-4, related to loan by converting share application money amount

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 298/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan: Aaact6167G Dy. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. The Jammu & Kashmir Circle-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bank Ltd., Corporate Head Bhawan, Railhead Complex, Quarters, M. A. Road, Jammu. Srinagar. (Appellant) (Respondent)

40a(ia) on account of short deduction of TDS. This issue is also covered in favour of assessee in ITA No. 74,76 & 137/Asr/2015. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 28.02.2017 are reproduced below: “11. Ground No. 4 pertains to addition u/s.40(a)(ia) on account of short TDS as reported in Annexure

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

TDS are not attracted on the supply of pamphlets, banners and other stationery items to the assessee as the same does not fall in the definition of “work” by virtue of sub clause (e) of clause (iv) of the explanation of section 194C. The disallowance of Rs 34,90,828/- u/s 40a(ia) is therefore deleted.” The ld. Counsel further

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 40a(ia) states that any amount on which tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid then such sum shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits of business or profession'. d. In the present case, TDS was to be deducted

DE vs. ON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMUVS.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

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

40A(2) whereas in the present case, the issue is claim of payment of sales commission against sales incentives paid as part of salary package to the employees of the assessee company without deducting TDS. 8. Similarly, the judgement given by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devson Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt./Dy.CIT “S.A Builders

DE vs. ON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMUVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

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

40A(2) whereas in the present case, the issue is claim of payment of sales commission against sales incentives paid as part of salary package to the employees of the assessee company without deducting TDS. 8. Similarly, the judgement given by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devson Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt./Dy.CIT “S.A Builders

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

2. That the Ld AO & Worthy CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in holding addition of Rs.10,32,932/-on account of unsubstantiated finding and treating the Redistribution amount allowed to retailers at Rs.10,32,932/- as commission liable to provisions of section 194H and since no tax was deducted by disallowing the same u/s. 40a

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

2. The appeal of the assessee has been taken for adjudication first. The briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer while relying upon the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Assessing Officer v. Pooja Construction Co. in ITA No. 750(Asr)/1992 (69 ITD 147) applied the gross profit

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

2. The appeal of the assessee has been taken for adjudication first. The briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer while relying upon the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Assessing Officer v. Pooja Construction Co. in ITA No. 750(Asr)/1992 (69 ITD 147) applied the gross profit

V R A COTTON MILLS.,ABOHAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

2 VRA Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT doubt the belief has turned out to be erroneous. But the assessee company has not withheld any such information relating to computation of income, so as to attract penalty provision of Sec.271(1)(c) as no claim of expenses has been found to be incorrect. In view of the aforesaid facts