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

88,as the case may be : Provided also that where the policy, issued on or after the 1st day of April, 2013, is for insurance on life of any person, who is— I.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 6 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (i) a person with disability or a person with severe disability as referred to in section 80U; or (ii) suffering from

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

TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature of income for a same amount in question cannot be treated differently by the deductor and the deductee. This goes to prove that the treatment of rental income as business income is again not correct. 4 In view of the above facts, the rental income

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

TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature of income for a same amount in question cannot be treated differently by the deductor and the deductee. This goes to prove that the treatment of rental income as business income is again not correct. 4 In view of the above facts, the rental income

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, 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

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

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. 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. 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

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALNDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation

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

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

88,377/-, based on the Form 26AS, and since all the grounds are interrelated, the same are dealt together. It is seen from the Form 26AS of the assessee that the assessee is in receipt of contractual receipts from BHEL and a TDS of Rs. 9,947/- was deducted u/s.194C of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee had claimed the TDS

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

TDS)’ in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 vide order dtd. 09.04.2018 and recently the Amritsar Bench in case of Harbhagwan Memorial Sen. Sec. School and others in ITA No. 604/ASR/2018, Assessment Year 2015-16 vide order dated 07/07/2019.The relevant part of the order is reproduced as funder: “3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed

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

TDS (2020) 122 taxman.com 196 (Delhi, Trib.). Accordingly, he has requested to quash the order of the worthy CIT(A) confirming the levy of fee of the appellant for different quarters of the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR stand by the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival