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

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

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

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

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 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

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

SH.RAMESH KUMAR MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

TDS)Srinagar that the assessee is engaged in the business of sale/purchase of all types of Kandam scrap like old Kandam Vehicles, Kandam Motor Parts, Metal Scrap, Rubber Scrap, Clothing Rags, Plastic Scrap, Empty Bottles etc. The assessee made purchases through auction of Military Kandam Goods by MST Ltd. New Delhi, a Govt, of India Undertaking auctioneer of army Kandam

SHRI BALDEV SINGH ,ABOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (2), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

TDS in the return of income. The income is in the nature of business. The ld. AO had calculated the turnover of this income amount of Rs.8,86,320/- by method of back calculation and added back with the total income during the processing of the return U/ 143(1) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before

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

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

86,429/- without appreciating the fact that the rate of profit/commission in this line of Kachha Ahartiya business is limited to 1% subject to incidental expenses. He argued that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts that the assessee was a Kachha Ahartiya dealing as commission agent of fresh vegetables and that rate of profit/ commission in such

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

86,429/- without appreciating the fact that the rate of profit/commission in this line of Kachha Ahartiya business is limited to 1% subject to incidental expenses. He argued that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts that the assessee was a Kachha Ahartiya dealing as commission agent of fresh vegetables and that rate of profit/ commission in such

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

86,429/- without appreciating the fact that the rate of profit/commission in this line of Kachha Ahartiya business is limited to 1% subject to incidental expenses. He argued that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts that the assessee was a Kachha Ahartiya dealing as commission agent of fresh vegetables and that rate of profit/ commission in such

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

86,429/- without appreciating the fact that the rate of profit/commission in this line of Kachha Ahartiya business is limited to 1% subject to incidental expenses. He argued that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts that the assessee was a Kachha Ahartiya dealing as commission agent of fresh vegetables and that rate of profit/ commission in such

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

TDS of Rs. 85,46,350/-, which was claimed exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to query raised by A.O. regarding nature of land, the appellant filed details in respect of the land and compensation amount received explaining that the land was agricultural in nature and is situated outside municipal limits. However, the Assessing

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

TDS Certificate in Form 16A related to deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR fully denied that the assessee had no transaction with the RolmexInternational, as alleged by the revenue. The ld. AR placed that the details as below: I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 33 Assessment Year: 2018-19 “18. Addition of Rs. 4,57,32,318/- on account of alleged bogus

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

86,000/ has remained unexplained. Further, no evidence in respect of transfer of property to Sh. Charanjit Singh (as stated in the statement by Sh. Shinder Pal Singh) is filed and also no evidence in support of the fact that the sale proceeds were not claimed by Sh. Charanjit Singh (being land on his name) viz. his bank account statement/confirmation