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

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

1) of the Act before delivery of the statement under Section 200(3) of the Act. If the assessee fails to pay the fee for the periods of delay, then the assessing authority has all the powers to levy fee while processing the statement under Section 200A of the Act by making adjustment after 01.06.2015." 5.5 Similarly, Hon’ble ITAT

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

73 March 26.04.2018 167353 45105 122248 493388 1340696 I.T.A. No.40/Asr/2023 8 Assessment Year: 2018-19 c) It is pertinent to mention here that the due date of deposit of provident fund as per The Provident Funds Act, 1925 is 15th of next month and for any fund set up as per EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948, the due date

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

73,500/- and accordingly, passed the order under section 263 of the Act. 5. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. During the hearing the Council of the assessee Mr. Rohit kapoor, Chartered Accountant filed the written submission on dated 12th September 2022 5 Narinder and Company v. ITO which is kept in the record. The counsel Mr. Rohit

SHRI SUBASH GUPTA,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 69 is upheld. The appellant's explanations lack substantive evidence to overturn the AO's conclusions. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, and the assessment order is sustained.” 5 I.T.A. No. 671/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 6. Now the assessee is before the tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. 7. The Ld. AR in course

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

73 taxmann.com 252 we hold that the amendment in section 200A by way of insertion of clause (c) is only with effect from (w.e.f.) 1-6-2015 and therefore no fees would be payable by the assessee for any period prior to 1-6-2015. 10. In view of the Factual matrix of the case, and the amendment in section

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) , SRINAGAR

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

73 taxmann.com 252 we hold that the amendment in section 200A by way of insertion of clause (c) is only with effect from (w.e.f.) 1-6-2015 and therefore no fees would be payable by the assessee for any period prior to 1-6-2015. 10. In view of the Factual matrix of the case, and the amendment in section

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

73 taxmann.com 252 we hold that the amendment in section 200A by way of insertion of clause (c) is only with effect from (w.e.f.) 1-6-2015 and therefore no fees would be payable by the assessee for any period prior to 1-6-2015. 10. In view of the Factual matrix of the case, and the amendment in section

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

73 taxmann.com 252 had considered the issue and after analysing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed

KC SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST (REGD),NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER . TDS., JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

1.M/s K.C. welfare 2014-15/ 19/02/2015 Social Trust, Navashahar Q-4 3. We understand that earlier, there was no enabling provision intheAct u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E. As such, in respect of TDS statement/Returns filed for a period prior to 31.03.2015, no late fee could be levied in the intimation issued

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. M/S SURJIT SINGH AND CO, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

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

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax to the extent of Rs. 1,02,52,935/- on account of claim of payment of site charges/labour charges and, therefore, not allowable as deduction. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal.” 4. Briefly the facts are that the assessee is a civil contractor engaged in constructing

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

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

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

TDS was made by the Ld. AO in accordance with the reporting as per Tax Audit Report which was not added back in Computation of Income at the time of filing of Return of Income. I.T.A. No.407/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 3.3. Further, the disallowance amount of Rs. 5,28,924/- was made on account of depreciation claimed

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