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

58-60 August 15.09.2017 807127 67773 I.T.A. No.40/Asr/2023 7 Assessment Year: 2018-19 364268 364268 55-57 September 12.10.2017 795320 66784 366688 366688 52-54 October 15.11.2017 800602 67226 366830 366830 49-51 November 14.12.2017 800913 67253 376152 376152 46-48 December 11.01.2018 821266 68962 376224 376224 43-45 January 14.02.2018 821423 68975 37-42 February

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

58,210/- U/s 234E. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by challenging the order of the ld. AO. After a detailed discussion the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on order of revenue authorities

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. SH. MOHAN LAL, BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 170/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pan: Aajpl8560B Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Prop. Ward-1(2), Bathinda. M/S Ramji Dass Bko, Vill. Bhagiwander, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act, which attracted the mischief of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appellant contests this disallowance on the ground that these represented labour charges for job work of “bharai” and “nikasi” which were disbursed through the appellant’s employee jamadars, Sri Bikkar

THE TRANS ASIAN INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION PVT. LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ASSESING OFFICER(TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue

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

58,000/- was paid to Akhshra theater which is exempted from tax. The appellant further stated that the payee has reflected this amount of payment in his books of account and therefore the appellant in view of the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs CIT could not be held as assessee in default for non -deduction. 6.3 Having heard

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRANS ASIA INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION (P) LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue

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

58,000/- was paid to Akhshra theater which is exempted from tax. The appellant further stated that the payee has reflected this amount of payment in his books of account and therefore the appellant in view of the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs CIT could not be held as assessee in default for non -deduction. 6.3 Having heard

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

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

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

V R A COTTON MILLS.,ABOHAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

TDS was effected payment amounting to Rs.1,23,96,887/- made to the appellant’s export house contractor M/s. Narendra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that order impugned herein is based on logical reasoning and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity

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

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

58, City Center, Amritsar 143001 [PAN: AKPPS 8265G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CA Respondent by : Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS was allowed and approved both by the A O and by the Commissioner. Such illegal action of the A O is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 2. The appellant had claimed in the return exemption from tax on long-term Capital Gain of Rs. 8,32,58,783/- in respect of the agricultural land which

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

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

TDS returns, VAT returns, details of creditors, debtors, etc. As such, the issue of cash deposited during demonetization period and the source was duly explained by the assessee to the Assessing Officer and as such the 'financial results' along with the cash book of the assessee were properly examined and considered by the Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS and had duly deposited it as required. From the perusal of record it can be Very well worked out that there was actual movement of goods and that our client had actually production purchased the goods / wheat, which he had used for its The detail of all the purchases is as under: S. Bill Dated Amount Goods Vehicle

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 17.7.2015. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, a firm in the business of sale and service of vehicles, returned its’ income for the year on 30/9/2012 at Rs.2625, setting off brought forward