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

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

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

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

TDS payment with bank, well within stipulated 'due date', however, there was one day delay in debiting amount from assessee's bank account which was apparently due to mistake of banker, no interest could have been levied under section 201(1A) on assessee; interest levied by revenue authorities was to be waived off” 3.5 The ld. AR further relied

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

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

TDS statement in the intimation dated 22/09/2017 issued u/s 200A of the Act. Accordingly, he contended that the CIT(A) was justified. 5. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record, impugned orders. 6. That the amended law made the provision to compute fee as per section

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

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

TDS statement in the intimation dated 22/09/2017 issued u/s 200A of the Act. Accordingly, he contended that the CIT(A) was justified. 5. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record, impugned orders. 6. That the amended law made the provision to compute fee as per section

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

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

TDS statement in the intimation dated 22/09/2017 issued u/s 200A of the Act. Accordingly, he contended that the CIT(A) was justified. 5. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record, impugned orders. 6. That the amended law made the provision to compute fee as per section

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

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

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

5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The relevant paragraphs of M/s 11, Corps Zone Workshop(supra) is duly inserted as below: “7. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. We find that the petitioner's central challenge viz. of non-permissibility to levy fee under section 234E of the Act till section 200A

PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section, the assessee has been held to be assessee in default u/s 206C of the Act for non-collection of TCS, resulting in total TCS default of Rs.8.58 lakhs (including interest u/s 206C(7) of the Act as applicable). 3 I.T.A. No. 375/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 5. The order passed by the ITO (TDS

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

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related to payment Rs.60,500/-. We fully relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench& the entire ground of the assessee is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication denovo. Needless to say, the assessee should

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

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related to payment Rs.60,500/-. We fully relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench& the entire ground of the assessee is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication denovo. Needless to say, the assessee should

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

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related to payment Rs.60,500/-. We fully relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench& the entire ground of the assessee is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication denovo. Needless to say, the assessee should

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

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related to payment Rs.60,500/-. We fully relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench& the entire ground of the assessee is remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication denovo. Needless to say, the assessee should

THE JHINGRAN COOP MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), JALANDHAR

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

5,000/- to non-members/nominal member without deducting TDS. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing that it is very clear in this regard under Section