SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

9. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(Appeals) have failed to appreciate that the power to collect the fees has been vested in prescribed authority only by way of substitution of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As such, prior to said substation

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

9. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(Appeals) have failed to appreciate that the power to collect the fees has been vested in prescribed authority only by way of substitution of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As such, prior to said substation

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

9. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(Appeals) have failed to appreciate that the power to collect the fees has been vested in prescribed authority only by way of substitution of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As such, prior to said substation

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

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

SHRI HARINDER PAL SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

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

9. The assessee had claimed that the assessee is eligible for this benefit u/s 205 of the Act and the deductor has liable to pay the tax and assessee is eligible for the credit of the TDS. 3.1 During hearing, the assessee relied on the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pushkar Prabhat Chandra

MESERS SPEED SURYA MOVIES ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act (No. 2) 2014 is applicable retrospectively. 8. In view of the amended provisions, the expenses incurred by the assessee without deducting the TDS cannot be disallowed at 100%. Accordingly, such disallowance shall be restricted to the extent of 30% only. We, therefore, direct the AO to restrict the disallowance

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

9,94,655/-, may please be deleted. 11. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that it is entirely the default of the assessee and should not have claimed the TDS issued by the contractor because the said claim of TDS can only be made against the PAN of the partnership where

KASHMIR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. CPC TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

TDS statements were filed on 22.08 2013. Thus, in our view, such a levy could only have been made at best within 31.03.2015 2015. However, the statements been processed on 16 2016 was beyond the. Of limitation specified in the provisions to section 200 A of the act. Thus, the time has already elapsed and this defect is thus

KASHMIR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. CPC TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

TDS statements were filed on 22.08 2013. Thus, in our view, such a levy could only have been made at best within 31.03.2015 2015. However, the statements been processed on 16 2016 was beyond the. Of limitation specified in the provisions to section 200 A of the act. Thus, the time has already elapsed and this defect is thus

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

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

TDS provision is allowed only to a member of a co-operative society. He further noted that the CBDT has clearly defined ‘member’ for the purpose of this section vide Circular No. 9

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

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

M/S. IQBAL MEMORIAL TRUST ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

TDS “8. statement and issuance of intimation under section 200A in respect thereof, an adjustment could also be made in respect of the “fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E”. There is no dispute that what is impugned in appeal before us is the intimation under section 200A of the Act, as stated

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

9 Assessment Year: 2018-19 3.2 The ld. AR placed that the employer contribution is related to section 43B which is covered by theCBDTCircular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015. The employer contribution should be allowed if the payment is done before the filing of return u/s 139(1). The extract of the Circular No. is below: “Circular No. 22/2015 F.No.279/Misc

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 statement and issuance of statement under section 200 A, an adjustment could be made in respect of the fee, if any shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the act. Since the amendment was prospective, it was not applicable to the quarter ending on 31.03.2015. 8. Accordingly, the orders

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

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

section 234E. In support, the appellant has relied on following judicial pronouncements- 1. ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited v DCIT (TDS), Gaziabad I.T.A. No.90/Asr/2015 dated 9

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

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

section 234E. In support, the appellant has relied on following judicial pronouncements- 1. ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited v DCIT (TDS), Gaziabad I.T.A. No.90/Asr/2015 dated 9