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

TDS belongs to the PFAS, where the gross is considered as per provisions of section 199 of the Act 61

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

61-63 July 17.08.2017 790867 362229 362229 66409 369677 369677 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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

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

TDS, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Act. On similar facts, the Hon’able Calcutta High Court in CIT vs S.K.Tekriwal [2012 I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 22 & Others appeals SCC Online CAL 12147]. We are not interfering

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

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 249(2) of the Act, 61. 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is a State Government Undertaking engaged in Transport Activities and are receiving ADPA fees, license fees and parking fees from two wheelers and other vehicles. On inspection of records it has been ascertained by the Income Tax Officer, TDS

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

61, apart from other additions of Rs. 15.40 lakhs on account of unexplained credit entries in bank. 8. The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority by observing as follows: 6 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 ( relevant portion reproduced ) “5.3.3 I have considered the reasoning given

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

61, apart from other additions of Rs. 15.40 lakhs on account of unexplained credit entries in bank. 8. The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority by observing as follows: 6 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 ( relevant portion reproduced ) “5.3.3 I have considered the reasoning given

SH. MUZAFFER JAN PAMPORI,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

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

section 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 4,61,200/-. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal by passing the exparte order and sustained the addition made by the A.O. Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 05/10/2018, 22/02/2019 and 08/03/2019

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

61,814/- in cash in apparent contravention of section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee’s claim of the places where the payments in cash were made, which were predominantly as salary to its employees (Rs.160.19 lacs), were not serviced by banks, so that its case would fall within the one of the excepting clauses of rule

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

61,814/- in cash in apparent contravention of section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee’s claim of the places where the payments in cash were made, which were predominantly as salary to its employees (Rs.160.19 lacs), were not serviced by banks, so that its case would fall within the one of the excepting clauses of rule

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

61,814/- in cash in apparent contravention of section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee’s claim of the places where the payments in cash were made, which were predominantly as salary to its employees (Rs.160.19 lacs), were not serviced by banks, so that its case would fall within the one of the excepting clauses of rule

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

61,814/- in cash in apparent contravention of section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee’s claim of the places where the payments in cash were made, which were predominantly as salary to its employees (Rs.160.19 lacs), were not serviced by banks, so that its case would fall within the one of the excepting clauses of rule