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. 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

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

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

7-R, Industrial Area-B, Ward-1(3), Jammu Ludhiana-141003 PAN: AAAHT5728E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. Gaurav Sharma, CA Revenue by : Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15/06/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20/06/2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal, is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi

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

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

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

b)(c)(d) (iv). (v) to such income credited or paid by a co-operative society (other than a co- operative bank) to a member thereof or to such income credited or paid by a cooperative society to any other co-operative society.” Thus as per the said provision the provisions of section 194A are not applicable in the case

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

TDS payment with bank, well within stipulated 'due date', however, there was one day delay in debiting amount from assessee's bank account which was apparently due to mistake of banker, no interest could have been levied under section 201(1A) on assessee; interest levied by revenue authorities was to be waived off” 3.5 The ld. AR further relied

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

b) After making adjustment for interest, if any, computed on the basis of sums deductible as computed in the statement. Thus, the issue after amendment was whether 234E levy could be affected in the course of intimation under section 200A even before June 2015. Considering the issue, tribunal highlighted that no other provision enabling a demand in respect of this

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

7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration— (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3 A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

TDS @1%and the total value of maturity is Rs.47,40,561/- is reflected in 26AS. The issue was agitated before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order which is reproduced as below: “6.) Decision: In the statement of facts it was argued as under: The facts of this case are that assessee

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

1) and 1B(B) to section 200 A of the Act. No other adjustment in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductors, were permissible within the law as it existed at that point of time. 6. In the above view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the coordinate bench decision in the case of Sibia

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

1) and 1B(B) to section 200 A of the Act. No other adjustment in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductors, were permissible within the law as it existed at that point of time. 6. In the above view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the coordinate bench decision in the case of Sibia

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

1) and 1B(B) to section 200 A of the Act. No other adjustment in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductors, were permissible within the law as it existed at that point of time. 6. In the above view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the coordinate bench decision in the case of Sibia

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

1) and 1B(B) to section 200 A of the Act. No other adjustment in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductors, were permissible within the law as it existed at that point of time. 6. In the above view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the coordinate bench decision in the case of Sibia

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

1) and 1B(B) to section 200 A of the Act. No other adjustment in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductors, were permissible within the law as it existed at that point of time. 6. In the above view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the coordinate bench decision in the case of Sibia

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HOSHIAPUR vs. SHRI HARPINDER SINGH GILL , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS, and Large Increase in capital. 4 ITO v. Harpinder Singh Gill Being not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessment for the A.Y. 2018-19 was completed by the AO on 30.12.2019 at total income of Rs. 3,05,77,966/-. 4. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before