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

7. Subsequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order passed by the AO on 19.09.2022 against three defaults in respect of not replying to notice u/s 142(1) dated 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022. 8. That the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is not mandatory rather is discretionary provided the appellant

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

7. Subsequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order passed by the AO on 19.09.2022 against three defaults in respect of not replying to notice u/s 142(1) dated 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022. 8. That the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is not mandatory rather is discretionary provided the appellant

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

7 ITA No. 548 (Asr)/2016 (AY 2009-10) Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. Asst. CIT Court in the light of the decisions of this court in Dharmendra Textile [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) and Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills [2009] 8 Scale 231.’ The matter was also examined, arriving though at the same conclusion, by the Hon'ble High

SHRI CHANDAN BHARDWAJ,TARN TARAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

TDS has been deducted thereon. The AO has also not considered the fact that the assessee has voluntarily revised the computation of income before the assessment was finalized and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 5. That no penalty notice dated 10/03/2017 has been served upon the appellant and as such penalty imposed

SH. JINDER PAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), AMRITSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

TDS has been deducted thereon. The AO has also not considered the fact that the assessee has voluntarily revised the computation of income before the assessment was finalized and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 5. That no penalty notice dated 10/03/2017 has been served upon the appellant and as such penalty imposed

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

7-4- 2022.[Notice u/s 148A(b) & replies are on PB-167-227] Crux of the matter raised by the AO in notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act • That as per information flagged on the insight portal of the Income Tax department as per report uploaded by ITO (Inv.) (OSD-1), Unit-8, New Delhi. The assessee had credited

SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

B-12, MCH-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur PAN: AAWPK 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" Shri Surinder Mahajan, CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Alok Kumar, CIT (D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by 16.12.2019 सुनवाईक"तार ख/ Date of hearing: 19.12.2019 उ#ोषणाक"तार ख/Pronouncement

MEASAGE POOJA FLOOR MILLS ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- TDS , AMRITSAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section (1) of Sec. 201 of the Act. In the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. A.R that taking cognizance of the fact that the respective payees had P a g e | 4 ITA No. 369-371/Asr./2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 to-2015-16 M/s Puja Flour Mills Vs. ITO already paid

MEASAGE POOJA FLOOR MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- TDS, AMRITSAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section (1) of Sec. 201 of the Act. In the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. A.R that taking cognizance of the fact that the respective payees had P a g e | 4 ITA No. 369-371/Asr./2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 to-2015-16 M/s Puja Flour Mills Vs. ITO already paid

MEASAGE POOJA FLOOR MILLS ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AMRITSAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section (1) of Sec. 201 of the Act. In the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. A.R that taking cognizance of the fact that the respective payees had P a g e | 4 ITA No. 369-371/Asr./2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 to-2015-16 M/s Puja Flour Mills Vs. ITO already paid

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

7 for both the years is in respect of confirmation of addition in respect of interest on FDRs, worked at Rs.256.62 lacs and Rs.432.72 lacs for the (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. AO two successive years respectively. The assessee admittedly following mercantile method of accounting, which it, being a corporate entity

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

7 for both the years is in respect of confirmation of addition in respect of interest on FDRs, worked at Rs.256.62 lacs and Rs.432.72 lacs for the (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. AO two successive years respectively. The assessee admittedly following mercantile method of accounting, which it, being a corporate entity

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

7 for both the years is in respect of confirmation of addition in respect of interest on FDRs, worked at Rs.256.62 lacs and Rs.432.72 lacs for the (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. AO two successive years respectively. The assessee admittedly following mercantile method of accounting, which it, being a corporate entity

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

7 for both the years is in respect of confirmation of addition in respect of interest on FDRs, worked at Rs.256.62 lacs and Rs.432.72 lacs for the (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. AO two successive years respectively. The assessee admittedly following mercantile method of accounting, which it, being a corporate entity

MESERS BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

1,01,12,400/- paid to M/s Oxbridge International Pvt. Ltd was disallowed by the AO and added back to the income of the assessee u/s 40A(2)(b) of the income tax Act, 1961. The facts of the case, the basis of addition/disallowance made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the appellate proceedings have been

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

1,01,12,400/- paid to M/s Oxbridge International Pvt. Ltd was disallowed by the AO and added back to the income of the assessee u/s 40A(2)(b) of the income tax Act, 1961. The facts of the case, the basis of addition/disallowance made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the appellate proceedings have been

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

7 and it does not amount to profit or gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that in the instant case, PUNGRAIN has also treated the amount paid to the assessee in the nature

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

7 and it does not amount to profit or gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that in the instant case, PUNGRAIN has also treated the amount paid to the assessee in the nature