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

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IV,, PATHANKOT vs. THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO. OPBANK LTD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenaandsh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS. The violation of section 40(a)(ia) will not be accepted. Considering this the ground no. (i) of the revenue&additional ground no-1 of assesseearedismissed and additional ground no. 2 of the assessee is allowed. I.T.A.No. 542/Asr/2017 7 & C.O. No.30/Asr/2017 Ground No. (ii) of Revenue for non-deduction of tax on Advertisement Expenses:- 6. In assessment

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

2. Brief facts emerging are that the assessee is a transport contractor under FCI (Food Corporation of India)engaged in the business of providing goods carriage (trucks)for transportation of food grains from their godowns, as per requirement of FCI (the contractee in this case). 3. For the year under appeal return of income was filed disclosing gross transport contract

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

2 of section 263 of the Act here which provides that an order shall be deemed to be erroneous if, in the opinion of the Pr. CIT/CIT “the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made”. 4.2.3 The words “which should have been made” in clause (a) are very subjective and even

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

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

2. 2013-14 7,53,933/- 75,393/- 27,137/- 1,02,530/- 3. 2014-15 7,53,933/- 75,393/- 18,097/- 93,490/- 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the ITO(TDS) before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee and upheld the order

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

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

2. 2013-14 7,53,933/- 75,393/- 27,137/- 1,02,530/- 3. 2014-15 7,53,933/- 75,393/- 18,097/- 93,490/- 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the ITO(TDS) before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee and upheld the order

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

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

2. 2013-14 7,53,933/- 75,393/- 27,137/- 1,02,530/- 3. 2014-15 7,53,933/- 75,393/- 18,097/- 93,490/- 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the ITO(TDS) before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee and upheld the order

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

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

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

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