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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2006] 157Taxman1 (SC). I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 30 Assessment Year: 2018-19 “4. The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue

SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. 8. No doubt, clause (a) of the Explanation 2 to section 263 deems the order to be erroneous and prejudicial

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

1), stands inserted by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. AY 2010-11, so that the said amendment, invoked by the ld. CIT(A) without specifically referring thereto, would not obtain for the relevant years. (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. AO 6. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

1), stands inserted by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. AY 2010-11, so that the said amendment, invoked by the ld. CIT(A) without specifically referring thereto, would not obtain for the relevant years. (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. AO 6. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

1), stands inserted by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. AY 2010-11, so that the said amendment, invoked by the ld. CIT(A) without specifically referring thereto, would not obtain for the relevant years. (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. AO 6. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

1), stands inserted by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. AY 2010-11, so that the said amendment, invoked by the ld. CIT(A) without specifically referring thereto, would not obtain for the relevant years. (AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. AO 6. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record

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

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