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

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

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

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

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

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

41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that no tax was required to be deducted on interest of FDR of JDA which has been incorporated by Govt, of J&K under J&K development Act and ignoring the fact that

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

4. The provisions necessitate examination of two basic conditions for grant of registration u/s 12AA. The same include, apart from the examination of objects of the society, satisfaction of the competent authority in respect of genuineness of activities as well particularly when the applicant is an ongoing entity. In additionit would also be relevant for the competent authority to come

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