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

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

TDS has been deducted thereon. The AO has also not considered the fact that the assessee has voluntarily revised the computation of income before the assessment was finalized and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 5. That no penalty notice dated 10/03/2017 has been served upon the appellant and as such penalty imposed

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

TDS Certificate in Form 16A related to deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR fully denied that the assessee had no transaction with the RolmexInternational, as alleged by the revenue. The ld. AR placed that the details as below: I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 33 Assessment Year: 2018-19 “18. Addition of Rs. 4,57,32,318/- on account of alleged bogus

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

TDS @1%and the total value of maturity is Rs.47,40,561/- is reflected in 26AS. The issue was agitated before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order which is reproduced as below: “6.) Decision: In the statement of facts it was argued as under: The facts of this case are that assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

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

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

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

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

TDS) v. Schutz Dishman Bio-tech (P.) Ltd. (TA No. 958 of 2018, dated 21/12/2015, at PB pgs. 10-12). The said decisions, which have been carefully perused, are without reference to the deliberations; the findings and the observations by the Apex Court per its larger bench decisions, since followed per its’ division bench decisions. There is in fact

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

41,467/- and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee.” I.T.A. Nos. 323 to 325/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2015-16 6 ii)High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case ofCommissioner of Income- taxv.Pankaj Munjal Family Trust[2010] 326 ITR 286 (Punjab & Haryana); “Held:- Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest

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

41,467/- and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee.” I.T.A. Nos. 323 to 325/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2015-16 6 ii)High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case ofCommissioner of Income- taxv.Pankaj Munjal Family Trust[2010] 326 ITR 286 (Punjab & Haryana); “Held:- Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest

M/S MANAGING COMMITTEE SWAMI PREMANAND MAHAVIDALYA,HOSHIARPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

TDS provisions or not? . xv. Provide the copy of financial statements for the last three financial years i.e. from F.Y. 2013-14 t0 F.Y. 2015-16. xvi. The note on activities of the society. xvii.Taxability in the case along with full ITR with computation for A.Y. 2014-15 t0 2016-17. xviii. Explanation of the nature of various funds reflected

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

41,173/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non deduction of TDS on Building Rent paid as assessee had failed to furnish the evidence regarding definite and ascertainable shares of co-owners to whom rent was paid. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly deleted

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

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

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

41,244/- and has declared excess of income over expenditure amounting to Rs 23,83,252/-. From the perusal of MOA of the assessee society it was found that all the objects are related to multiple activities and not solely for imparting of education. Society's activities as per objectives include non-educational purposes also. However, As per section

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

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

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

41,244/- and has declared excess of income over expenditure amounting to Rs 23,83,252/-. From the perusal of MOA of the assessee society it was found that all the objects are related to multiple activities and not solely for imparting of education. Society's activities as per objectives include non-educational purposes also. However, As per section

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS,), JALANDHAR

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

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

41,244/- and has declared excess of income over expenditure amounting to Rs 23,83,252/-. From the perusal of MOA of the assessee society it was found that all the objects are related to multiple activities and not solely for imparting of education. Society's activities as per objectives include non-educational purposes also. However, As per section