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 43B would operate to bar the allowance of the unremitted amount (sec.43B). Again, there is no improvement in the assessee’s case before us. Even assuming a liability (to service-tax), in-as-much as there is no systematic record with regard thereto, which though could be readily ascertained from the service tax returns as filed with the concerned

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 43B would operate to bar the allowance of the unremitted amount (sec.43B). Again, there is no improvement in the assessee’s case before us. Even assuming a liability (to service-tax), in-as-much as there is no systematic record with regard thereto, which though could be readily ascertained from the service tax returns as filed with the concerned

SPARROW SECURITY SERVICES ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JAMMU

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

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

43B of the Act and amending the first proviso, the contribution to welfare funds have been brought at par with the other duty, cess, fee, etc. Thus, the proviso is equally applicable to the welfare funds also. Therefore the deduction is allowable to the employer assessee if he deposits the contributions to welfare funds on or before the ‘due date

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. SURAJ PRAKASH,AMRTITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(5),, AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 638/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

TDS at full amount, despite the assessee being the owner of one-half share; the balance amount being received only for and on behalf of the other three co-owners, is valid 3 Suraj Parkash v. ITO in law, as explained in CIT v. Ganesh Narayan Brijlal Ltd. [2017] 292 CTR 518 (Cal). 3. Before me it was claimed that

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

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

43B(f) of the I.T. Act are overriding as the assessee has not made payments only of Rs. 22,12,519/- to the employees whereas he has claimed Rs. 45,43,670/- as provisions for leave encashment and the accrued interest of Rs. 1,75,78,084/- on the deposits made by it in the schemes of LIC, Bajaj Allianz