MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

90 taxmann.com 20 (Delhi Trib.), in which, it has been held as under:- “Section 2(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deemed dividend (Loans or advances to shareholders) - Assessment year 2008- 09 - Whether where Commissioner(Appeals) made addition to assessee's income under section 2(22)(e) in respect of amounts received from various group companies, in view

SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, ZIRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS of Rs.4,07,893/- was effected on the said amount @ 20%+3% CESS. 8. In terms of the provisions of sub section (iv) of section 57, read with sub- clause (viii) of section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the taxability of 50% of such interest cannot be escaped by the appellant. The action

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

TDS deducted accordingly), which resulted in an apparent non -disclosure of gross contract receipts to the tune of Rs.1.73 crores, as per the return filed. 4. The assessee explained the difference that the said transport bill amount of Rs.1.73 crores has been actually received on 17th April, 2015, and the same has also been considered in the gross receipts

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 40A(2). 3. Feeling aggrieved by the Order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT Appeal. The CIT Appeal vide impugned order dated 30.11.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14 and Order dated 29.01.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 have partly granted the relief and have confirmed the disallowance at the rate

MESERS BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 40A(2). 3. Feeling aggrieved by the Order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT Appeal. The CIT Appeal vide impugned order dated 30.11.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14 and Order dated 29.01.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 have partly granted the relief and have confirmed the disallowance at the rate

MEASAGE POOJA FLOOR MILLS ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- TDS , AMRITSAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section (1) of Sec. 201 of the Act. In the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. A.R that taking cognizance of the fact that the respective payees had P a g e | 4 ITA No. 369-371/Asr./2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 to-2015-16 M/s Puja Flour Mills Vs. ITO already paid

MEASAGE POOJA FLOOR MILLS ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AMRITSAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section (1) of Sec. 201 of the Act. In the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. A.R that taking cognizance of the fact that the respective payees had P a g e | 4 ITA No. 369-371/Asr./2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 to-2015-16 M/s Puja Flour Mills Vs. ITO already paid

MEASAGE POOJA FLOOR MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- TDS, AMRITSAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section (1) of Sec. 201 of the Act. In the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions, it was averred by the Ld. A.R that taking cognizance of the fact that the respective payees had P a g e | 4 ITA No. 369-371/Asr./2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 to-2015-16 M/s Puja Flour Mills Vs. ITO already paid

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

90,272/-, subject to the finding that the AO may ensure that for working out short term capital gain, set off of WDV of all and (AY 2006-07) Embrocia Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy CIT entire Plant & machinery, building, etc. should be given instead of only of feed unit as poultry (unit) and feed units were part of same

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

90,272/-, subject to the finding that the AO may ensure that for working out short term capital gain, set off of WDV of all and (AY 2006-07) Embrocia Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy CIT entire Plant & machinery, building, etc. should be given instead of only of feed unit as poultry (unit) and feed units were part of same

ITFAQ EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS wherever applicable. 5. On the circumstances & facts of the case and in law, the Worthy CIT has totally erred in holding that the payments made through cheques hasn’t been confirmed by the banks. This observation by the CIT has been made without looking at records made available from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS and had duly deposited it as required. From the perusal of record it can be Very well worked out that there was actual movement of goods and that our client had actually production purchased the goods / wheat, which he had used for its The detail of all the purchases is as under: S. Bill Dated Amount Goods Vehicle

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

TDS benefit to be given did not lead to escapement of income Mere fact that matters need to be verified and examined further could never be reason good enough to believe that income had escaped assessment and re- open assessment proceedings was bad in law-Assessee's Appeals allowed. b. Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Batra Bhatta Company, High Court

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

TDS benefit to be given did not lead to escapement of income Mere fact that matters need to be verified and examined further could never be reason good enough to believe that income had escaped assessment and re- open assessment proceedings was bad in law-Assessee's Appeals allowed. b. Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Batra Bhatta Company, High Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

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

TDS returns filed by the assessee showing the amount of tax deducted at source on interest paid to the loan creditors. This also proves the genuineness of the loan advanced by Sh. Amandeep Singh to the appellant in the year under consideration. Moreover, the identity of Sh. Amandeep Singh is established as he attended before

SHRI ARSHAD MOHD MALIK,JAMMU vs. INMCVOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (4), UDHAMPUR

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

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

TDS return of Department. And the department had filed the correction return during the Assessment proceedings . Further in reply dated 22.12.2016 copy of the Acknowledgement of the revised return of the PMGSY div. Ramban was also furnished. The changes in I.T.A. No.168/Asr/2020 3 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Form 26 AS were effected by the PMGSY Department before the Assessment order