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

c) That the same facts have been admitted by the AO that the deposits in the bank account are not the turnover of the assessee which is visualized from the fact that the AO has not invoked the penalty u/s 271B i.e. failure to get the accounts audited meaning thereby that the AO has taken into consideration the binding circular

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

c) That the same facts have been admitted by the AO that the deposits in the bank account are not the turnover of the assessee which is visualized from the fact that the AO has not invoked the penalty u/s 271B i.e. failure to get the accounts audited meaning thereby that the AO has taken into consideration the binding circular

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

c) That the same facts have been admitted by the AO that the deposits in the bank account are not the turnover of the assessee which is visualized from the fact that the AO has not invoked the penalty u/s 271B i.e. failure to get the accounts audited meaning thereby that the AO has taken into consideration the binding circular

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

c) That the same facts have been admitted by the AO that the deposits in the bank account are not the turnover of the assessee which is visualized from the fact that the AO has not invoked the penalty u/s 271B i.e. failure to get the accounts audited meaning thereby that the AO has taken into consideration the binding circular

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

c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of Taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business

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

5(1), New Delhi, [2010] 125ITD309 (DELHI) “10.2 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 (SC). As regards the former judgment, it will be seen that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that claim of expenditure had to be tested

MR. TIRLOK NATH MAHAJAN,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

c of section 271(1) of the Act as per mandate. 4. Per contra, the Ld DR although supported the impugned order, however, he failed to rebut the contention of the counsel. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record, impugned order, written submission filed before us. Admittedly, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the facts

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

TDS deducted accordingly), which resulted in an apparent non -disclosure of gross contract receipts to the tune of Rs.1.73 crores, as per the return filed. 4. The assessee explained the difference that the said transport bill amount of Rs.1.73 crores has been actually received on 17th April, 2015, and the same has also been considered in the gross receipts

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU vs. SHRI MOHD ASLAM BAGGAR, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in considering the date of transfer of the impugned land measuring 74K 08M as the year 1947 instead of 19.05.2014 (date of the final award of compensation). 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the date of transfer

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

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

c) is only with effect from (w.e.f.) 1-6-2015 and therefore no fees would be payable by the assessee for any period prior to 1-6-2015. 10. In view of the Factual matrix of the case, and the amendment in section 200A, we hold that the demand raised by the Income-tax Authorities for levying late

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

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

c) is only with effect from (w.e.f.) 1-6-2015 and therefore no fees would be payable by the assessee for any period prior to 1-6-2015. 10. In view of the Factual matrix of the case, and the amendment in section 200A, we hold that the demand raised by the Income-tax Authorities for levying late

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

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

c) is only with effect from (w.e.f.) 1-6-2015 and therefore no fees would be payable by the assessee for any period prior to 1-6-2015. 10. In view of the Factual matrix of the case, and the amendment in section 200A, we hold that the demand raised by the Income-tax Authorities for levying late

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

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

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

c), (d) & (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from 1-6-2015 and therefore the authority issuing intimation u/s. 200A of the Act while processing return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act, could not levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of statement of TDS filed prior to 1

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

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

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

c), (d) & (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from 1-6-2015 and therefore the authority issuing intimation u/s. 200A of the Act while processing return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act, could not levy fee u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of statement of TDS filed prior to 1

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

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

TDS on the amount paid by a co-operative society to its member. The said section is reproduced hereunder:- “Section 194A (1) Any person not being an individual ............................................................................................................................................ ded uct income tax thereon at the rates in force. Provided that an individual or a Hindu Undivid ........................................................... (2) (Omitted by the finance Act,1992 w.e.f.1-6-1992) (3) The provisions of sub-section

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

c) to section 200A vide Finance act 2015 w.e.f. 01-06- 2015. However, AO is empowered to levy fees u/s 234E if intimation u/s 200A is issued after 01.06.2015 by virtue of the finance Act, 2015. 5.3 The Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar bench in the judgment in the Sibia Healthcare Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has held

B D S TECHOLOGIES,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

c) to section 200A(1) of the Act specifically w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and where there is nothing to suggest that the said amendment was clarificatory or retrospective in nature, hence in respect of TDS statements filed BDS Technologies v. ITO for the period prior to 01.06.2015, late fees charged under section 234E of the Act could not be levied

B D S TECHNOLOGIES ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

c) to section 200A(1) of the Act specifically w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and where there is nothing to suggest that the said amendment was clarificatory or retrospective in nature, hence in respect of TDS statements filed BDS Technologies v. ITO for the period prior to 01.06.2015, late fees charged under section 234E of the Act could not be levied