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

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

4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 stating that each assessment year is distinct since apart from the yearly amendments, the income tax act does not discriminate between different assessment years and the decision in one assessment is applied consistently to another assessment year. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal

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

4. The learned Pr. CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act vide show cause notice u/s 263 vide letter No. 2607 dated 22.02.2022; pointing out certain discrepancies in the Assessment Order. The learned Pr. CIT observed that the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in as much

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

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

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

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

4. None attended for the assessee although the notice of fixing the appeal for hearing has been got served through the ITO, (TDS), Srinagar /Addl. CIT(DR) by way of affixture in the presence of two independent witnesses, on the directions of the Tribunal. 5. These appeals are old appeals of 2014 and have been fixed for hearing

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

4. None attended for the assessee although the notice of fixing the appeal for hearing has been got served through the ITO, (TDS), Srinagar /Addl. CIT(DR) by way of affixture in the presence of two independent witnesses, on the directions of the Tribunal. 5. These appeals are old appeals of 2014 and have been fixed for hearing

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

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

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Insofar the disallowance under Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the interest expenditure of Rs. 2,45,58,987/- made by the A.O was concerned, it was observed by the CIT(A) that as the income tax act did not provide any exemption for non deduction

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

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

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

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