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

SHRI CHANDAN BHARDWAJ,TARN TARAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, 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

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

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, 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

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

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 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

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

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