SHRI RANJEET SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 96 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 cannot be given to the appellant from Long Term Capital Gains, arising from Compulsory Acquisition of Land under National Highway Act, 1956, while ignoring the contention of the assessee that the CIT(A) NFAC has allowed the exemption, on identical facts, in the case of Jaswinder Kaur Sahni, Bathinda; that ignored the contention

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 INTEREST TDS ON INTEREST 51867 1448111.00 Cr (PAYABLE) 48 G. G. Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT The payment of Rs. 6.22 lacs (on October 15 & 17, 2013) is on account of insurance in respect of foreign letter of credit (FLC) by GAPL for an on behalf of the assessee-company, claimed by the latter as an insurance

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

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

45,58,987/- paid by the assessee bank on the fixed deposits of PTU is concerned, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that as PTU had submitted letters claiming that as its income was exempt under Sec. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the IT Act, therefore, no TDS was liable to be deducted on the interest that

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 40(a)(ia) being subsequent in time, it may well be that the assessee had, in terms of the provision as it stood for the relevant years, claimed and been allowed deduction for the year/s when the TDS stands deposited to the credit of the Central Government. The onus to satisfy the AO in this regard, i.e., that there

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 40(a)(ia) being subsequent in time, it may well be that the assessee had, in terms of the provision as it stood for the relevant years, claimed and been allowed deduction for the year/s when the TDS stands deposited to the credit of the Central Government. The onus to satisfy the AO in this regard, i.e., that there

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 40(a)(ia) being subsequent in time, it may well be that the assessee had, in terms of the provision as it stood for the relevant years, claimed and been allowed deduction for the year/s when the TDS stands deposited to the credit of the Central Government. The onus to satisfy the AO in this regard, i.e., that there

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 40(a)(ia) being subsequent in time, it may well be that the assessee had, in terms of the provision as it stood for the relevant years, claimed and been allowed deduction for the year/s when the TDS stands deposited to the credit of the Central Government. The onus to satisfy the AO in this regard, i.e., that there

SH.RAMESH KUMAR MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

TDS)Srinagar that the assessee is engaged in the business of sale/purchase of all types of Kandam scrap like old Kandam Vehicles, Kandam Motor Parts, Metal Scrap, Rubber Scrap, Clothing Rags, Plastic Scrap, Empty Bottles etc. The assessee made purchases through auction of Military Kandam Goods by MST Ltd. New Delhi, a Govt, of India Undertaking auctioneer of army Kandam

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

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

45,818 Less:sundry creditors in return u/s 148 = 425,322 Addition created = 8220496 And further wrongly ignored that returnfieldu/s 148(1)becomes the originalreturn as per section 148(1) read with sec 139 and old return dtd. 29-09-2012, is redundant and any addition based on old return is bad- in- law and further no defect is pointed

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

45,818 Less:sundry creditors in return u/s 148 = 425,322 Addition created = 8220496 And further wrongly ignored that returnfieldu/s 148(1)becomes the originalreturn as per section 148(1) read with sec 139 and old return dtd. 29-09-2012, is redundant and any addition based on old return is bad- in- law and further no defect is pointed

SMT. BHARTI SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

45,818 Less:sundry creditors in return u/s 148 = 425,322 Addition created = 8220496 And further wrongly ignored that returnfieldu/s 148(1)becomes the originalreturn as per section 148(1) read with sec 139 and old return dtd. 29-09-2012, is redundant and any addition based on old return is bad- in- law and further no defect is pointed

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

45 ITD 581 (Pune - Trib.), with the following observa-tions : ". . . Further, reference was made by assessee to pages 52 to 54 which contains Board’s Circular No. 452, dated 17-3-1986 which has been issued in connection with section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Reliance was placed on para 4 of the said circular according to which

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

45 ITD 581 (Pune - Trib.), with the following observa-tions : ". . . Further, reference was made by assessee to pages 52 to 54 which contains Board’s Circular No. 452, dated 17-3-1986 which has been issued in connection with section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Reliance was placed on para 4 of the said circular according to which

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

45 ITD 581 (Pune - Trib.), with the following observa-tions : ". . . Further, reference was made by assessee to pages 52 to 54 which contains Board’s Circular No. 452, dated 17-3-1986 which has been issued in connection with section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Reliance was placed on para 4 of the said circular according to which

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

45 ITD 581 (Pune - Trib.), with the following observa-tions : ". . . Further, reference was made by assessee to pages 52 to 54 which contains Board’s Circular No. 452, dated 17-3-1986 which has been issued in connection with section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Reliance was placed on para 4 of the said circular according to which

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

45 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The assessee received a 2 Suraj Parkash v. ITO compensation of Rs.19,57,791/- on the acquisition of his land by the Central Government, i.e., after deducting tax at source thereon at the rate of 10%. The corresponding long-term capital gain (LTCG), returned at Rs.6,44,499 was, however

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

TDS benefit to be given did not lead to escapement of income Mere fact that matters need to be verified and examined further could never be reason good enough to believe that income had escaped assessment and re- open assessment proceedings was bad in law-Assessee's Appeals allowed. b. Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Batra Bhatta Company, High Court