INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. SH. MOHAN LAL, BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 170/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pan: Aajpl8560B Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Prop. Ward-1(2), Bathinda. M/S Ramji Dass Bko, Vill. Bhagiwander, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. (Appellant) (Respondent)

3,10,754/-, which amount represented payment of Job-Work of “bharai” and “nikasi” without subjecting the same to TDS as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act, which attracted the mischief of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appellant contests this 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

3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case

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

3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case

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

3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case

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

3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case

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

3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case

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

3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case

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

3. The Ld. C1T(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 298/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan: Aaact6167G Dy. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. The Jammu & Kashmir Circle-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bank Ltd., Corporate Head Bhawan, Railhead Complex, Quarters, M. A. Road, Jammu. Srinagar. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and as per notification, the Jammu Development Authority is a creation of J & K Development Act and satisfies the condition at Entry No.39 of the said notification and we hold that no tax was deductible on accrued interest on FDRs of Jammu Development Authority with J & K Bank Ltd. Keeping in view

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

section 194C. The disallowance of Rs 34,90,828/- u/s 40a(ia) is therefore deleted.” The ld. Counsel further in argument invited our attention inCBDTCircular 6.1 No. 13/2006 dated 13.12.2006. The relevant para is extracted as below:- “3

M/S. ANAND TEXTILES ,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 674/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 194C of the Act. Hence, the expenses were disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Being aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before this tribunal. The Ld. counsel submitted that when the books of account are rejected then no other disallowances are called for. 12. Per contra the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the disallowances were made

FIRST INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.46/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that reimbursement of freight, loading/unloading charges to the associate concern is not any payment for the services rendered by the associate concerns and therefore, has erre’d in law and on the facts and circumstances of case in confirming disallowance

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"

3,62,608 of computer expenses and Rs.3,68,192 on weig bridge expenses. As these expenses were paid to particular entity which are in the nature of Works contract and liable to TDS under section 194C of the Act. However, the perusal of records suggest that there is nothing on record that TDS was deducted on these payments

M/S KASHMIR CEMENT,UDHAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

3. After considering the contentions raised by the counsel for the assessee in grounds of appeal and facts discussed by the ld. CIT(A) that since the freight paid to M/s Punjab Kashmir Roadlines a sum aggregating to Rs.1,49,470/- which exceeds Rs.75,000/-. Thus, it was hit by section 194C of the Act, and therefore, the assessee

M/S. NORTHERN STEEL INDUSTRIES,,SRINAGAR (KMR) vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR (J&K)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 430/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 40A(3) (as noted at para 2.3.1 of his order), be not effected. The assessee, it may be noted, has not contested the disallowance on merits, either in appeal before the first appellate authority or even before the tribunal. So, however, to accord with the principle of natural justice, the AO shall, at the time of appeal-effect giving

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

3 Amrinder Singh Dhiman v. Addl. CIT 4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature. 5. Ground no. 2 to 4, the petitioner was assessed for the assessment year 2010- 11 during the proceedings the assessee’s foreign travel was duly disallowed by the ld Assessing Officer (in brevity the AO) at the rate of 20% on total amount

M/S. PMS DIESELS,,PHAGWARA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 65/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

3. Ground 2 impugns the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) at Rs.5,81,978/- on account of non-deduction of tax at source (TDS) on the following sums: 2 PMS International Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl.CIT (a) Shipping expenses : Rs.3,52,434/- (b) Job work expenses : Rs. 91,620/- (c) Freight expenses : Rs.1,37,924/- Qua the first amount, the assessee

MESAGE. NORTHERN TRASFORMERS. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 329/Asr/2019 is partly

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

194C for payment to transporter amount of Rs.22,850/- and Rs.26,723/- which is worked out total amount of Rs.49,573/- was added back with total income of the assessee.Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by AO. 3. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. During