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

section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure. The assessee, though admitting the legal position, claims, albeit without any evidence, that the liability in respect of the impugned gratuity had, in fact, crystallized as at the year-end in-as-much as the relevant employee/s had superannuated during the relevant year/s. The assessee’s case

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

section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure. The assessee, though admitting the legal position, claims, albeit without any evidence, that the liability in respect of the impugned gratuity had, in fact, crystallized as at the year-end in-as-much as the relevant employee/s had superannuated during the relevant year/s. The assessee’s case

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

section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure. The assessee, though admitting the legal position, claims, albeit without any evidence, that the liability in respect of the impugned gratuity had, in fact, crystallized as at the year-end in-as-much as the relevant employee/s had superannuated during the relevant year/s. The assessee’s case

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

section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure. The assessee, though admitting the legal position, claims, albeit without any evidence, that the liability in respect of the impugned gratuity had, in fact, crystallized as at the year-end in-as-much as the relevant employee/s had superannuated during the relevant year/s. The assessee’s case

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

TDS was deducted on these payments being made to subcontractors whose PAN were available on record. The AO however concluded that the payment of Rs 102,52,935/- was shown to be made in cash on the last day of the year which was also covered u/s 40A(3) ,which was without any evidences, identity, address, and records

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)

7 are dismissed. Ground no. 8 relates to disallowance u/s 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

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)

40a(ia) of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A) detailed submissions were made and Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions by holding as under: “10. The issue in dispute has been considered. It is axiomatic that if “nikasi” is to be paid, chunai” and “keri” has to be paid of the purposes of bricks coming out of the kiln

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

7 The amount of Rs.35,270 on 13/02/2012 is for two bills of freight credited to the supplier M/s Mahaveer Foods no payment for these was made in cash-APB Pageno.136-139. Vouchers are at page no.171. The other observation regarding non-deduction of TDS under section 194-C is not applicable in this case as no oral or written agreement

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

7 The amount of Rs.35,270 on 13/02/2012 is for two bills of freight credited to the supplier M/s Mahaveer Foods no payment for these was made in cash-APB Pageno.136-139. Vouchers are at page no.171. The other observation regarding non-deduction of TDS under section 194-C is not applicable in this case as no oral or written agreement

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

7. The order of Hon’ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Subash Chander & Co. v. ITO in ITA No. 568/Asr/2008, AY 2006-07(2009)121TTJ 718 dated 13th Jan., 2009 is not applicable to the facts of the present case of the assessee as in that case the Tribunal has dealt with the issue and genuineness and payments

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

7. The order of Hon’ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Subash Chander & Co. v. ITO in ITA No. 568/Asr/2008, AY 2006-07(2009)121TTJ 718 dated 13th Jan., 2009 is not applicable to the facts of the present case of the assessee as in that case the Tribunal has dealt with the issue and genuineness and payments

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

section 194H and since no tax was deducted by disallowing the same u/s. 40a(ia) whereas the Appellant is not having any payer and payee relationship with the retailers as retailers are not providing any services to the company and not to the appellant. The Appellant is only transferring/redistributing money received from Reliance as per their directions 3. That

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

40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act respectively. Recently, the ITAT Amritsar Bench, at Amritsar, in the case of ITO v. Nikhil Infra-Tech Ltd. in ITA No.272(Asr)/2017, in the similar and identical circumstances estimated the Net profit rate @ 5% of the turn over and further affirmed the deletion of disallowance on account of depreciation

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

40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act respectively. Recently, the ITAT Amritsar Bench, at Amritsar, in the case of ITO v. Nikhil Infra-Tech Ltd. in ITA No.272(Asr)/2017, in the similar and identical circumstances estimated the Net profit rate @ 5% of the turn over and further affirmed the deletion of disallowance on account of depreciation