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

9. A perusal of the above provisions of u/s. 271(1)(b) shows that the Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified by Section 273B of the Act namely “Penalty not to be imposed

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

9. A perusal of the above provisions of u/s. 271(1)(b) shows that the Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified by Section 273B of the Act namely “Penalty not to be imposed

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

Section 139 (5) of the Act was filed before the Assessing Officer. We answer both the question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and in favour of assessee”. Ground No. 3 9. Ground No. 3, not pressed. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 32 Assessment Year: 2018-19 10. The ld. AR argued that the assessee paidcommission during financial year

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

1) of I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 6 the Act. since the presence of business is absent in the present case, which however, is an elementary concept for an income to fall under the head profits & gains of business or profession. Section 28 of the Act is reproduced as under- "28 The following 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

1) of I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 6 the Act. since the presence of business is absent in the present case, which however, is an elementary concept for an income to fall under the head profits & gains of business or profession. Section 28 of the Act is reproduced as under- "28 The following income

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

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

1. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFSC Delhi, is against law & facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi has erred in law & facts of the case in confirming the action of the ld. AO in treating the assessee in default for TDS to the tune of Rs.41

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

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

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

1 &2. The TDS was accordingly claimed in relation to the rental income. The assessee further submitted that a rectification petition was also submitted before the ld. AO for claiming of the TDS and the ledger of the party as proof of the I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2015-16 deduction of TDS is also submitted in APB page

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

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 u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

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 u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

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 u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

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 u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

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 u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

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 u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for disallowance

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 u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for expenses related to exempt income. I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 6 & Others appeals 5. On the other hand the assessee filed appeal in relation to addition for 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

1) (a) (vi) is upheld and the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 8. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. 9. In course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the same submissions that the original return was wrongly filed claiming the benefit of TDS which resulted