GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

section 200A of the Act as the enabling provision was not present. In the present case, TDS Quarterly statements were filed after 01/06/2015. Thus, the AO was correct in levy of fee u/s 200A of the I T Act. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the intimations issued by CPC (TDS). Therefore, all the grounds

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 145 of the Act. The assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings. Interest income was accordingly assessed, and penalty proceedings initiated. Under the circumstances, the AO’s satisfaction for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is plain and apparent. (b) The second item is qua the disallowance in the sum of Rs.1

SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

section 194C of the Act. However, the perusal of records suggest that there is nothing on record that TDS was deducted on these payments. The Pr.CIT further, observed that the assessee has debited Rs.5,91,030 as court fees paid for civil suit to recover Rs. 2,09,00,000 and Rs.17,53,638 against Kamaldeep Singh and M/s. Gupta

INDERJIT SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGAWARA

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That Appellant requests to add, amend or leave any grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assesseean individual (Mr. Inderjit Singh )is a partner of the partnership firm M/s Golden Auto Industries PAN: [AAKFG 9983E

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

5 of computing any loss as per the provisions of section 35AD of the Act. In the absence of any loss, there arised no question of setting it off against current year income. 3. During the previous year under consideration, it had earned Rs.6, 18, 29,857/-as rental income le income from a source other than from a specified

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

5 of computing any loss as per the provisions of section 35AD of the Act. In the absence of any loss, there arised no question of setting it off against current year income. 3. During the previous year under consideration, it had earned Rs.6, 18, 29,857/-as rental income le income from a source other than from a specified

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

5 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Karnataka High Court in Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI (supra) and held that the provisions of charging fee under section

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

5 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Karnataka High Court in Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI (supra) and held that the provisions of charging fee under section

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

5 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Karnataka High Court in Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI (supra) and held that the provisions of charging fee under section

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALNDHAR

5 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Karnataka High Court in Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI (supra) and held that the provisions of charging fee under section

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

5 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Karnataka High Court in Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI (supra) and held that the provisions of charging fee under section

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

5 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Karnataka High Court in Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI (supra) and held that the provisions of charging fee under section

MESERS SPEED SURYA MOVIES ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

5. The Ld. DR stands by the impugned order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the expense claimed by the assessee toward laboratory expense amounting to Rs.21,59,500/- was disallowed on account of non-deduction of TDS, u/s194A read with section

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

Section 139 (5) of the Act was filed before the Assessing Officer. We answer both the question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and in favour of assessee”. Ground No. 3 9. Ground No. 3, not pressed. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 32 Assessment Year: 2018-19 10. The ld. AR argued that the assessee paidcommission during financial year

SECURE 1 SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR

Accordingly ground no. 05 to 07 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

TDS deducted u/s 194C (in Form 26AS), under the head payment to contractor amounting to Rs. 5.28 crores. 5. In absence of any response or compliance from the assessee company, in course of assessment proceedings, to various notices issued by the AO, the assessment was completed ex-parte on a total income of Rs. 5.28 crores. 6. In course

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SECURE 1 SERVICES PVT. LTD., JALANDHAR

Accordingly ground no. 05 to 07 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

TDS deducted u/s 194C (in Form 26AS), under the head payment to contractor amounting to Rs. 5.28 crores. 5. In absence of any response or compliance from the assessee company, in course of assessment proceedings, to various notices issued by the AO, the assessment was completed ex-parte on a total income of Rs. 5.28 crores. 6. In course

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

5. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) while adjudicating the application for condonation of delay in filing ought to have considered that on merits order passed by CPC (TDS) are illegal having being passed beyond the time limit stipulated in proviso to section

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

5. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) while adjudicating the application for condonation of delay in filing ought to have considered that on merits order passed by CPC (TDS) are illegal having being passed beyond the time limit stipulated in proviso to section