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)

194C of the Act, which attracted the mischief of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appellant contests this disallowance on the ground that these represented labour charges for job work of “bharai” and “nikasi” which were disbursed through the appellant’s employee jamadars, Sri Bikkar 6

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

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

6 ii)High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case ofCommissioner of Income- taxv.Pankaj Munjal Family Trust[2010] 326 ITR 286 (Punjab & Haryana); “Held:- Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest on borrowed capital - Assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1986-87 and 1988-89 - Where assessee-trust had taken a loan at 16 per cent

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

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

6 ii)High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case ofCommissioner of Income- taxv.Pankaj Munjal Family Trust[2010] 326 ITR 286 (Punjab & Haryana); “Held:- Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest on borrowed capital - Assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1986-87 and 1988-89 - Where assessee-trust had taken a loan at 16 per cent

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

6. In assessment the ld. AO disallowed the advertisement expenses Rs.34,90,828/- on the ground that non deduction of TDS from the party. In argument the ld. CIT-Dr relied on the order of the ld. AO. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued that the payment was for purchasing of printing material and the said purchase price

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

6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that

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

6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that

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

6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that

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

6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that

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

6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that

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

6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that

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

6. Being aggrieved both assessee and revenue filed cross appeals before us. 7.Ground No. 1 of the revenue: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,84,41,850/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of interest paid to JDA by relying on the submission of the assessee that

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

6 & 7. The ld AO disallowed the amount to Rs.2,33,432/- u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of tax u/s 194C, however the observation of the ld AO is as follows: “7. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia): 7.1 The assessee has made payment of Rs.28,565/- and Rs.2,04,867 under the head "clearing & forwarding charges

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

6. The counsel submitted that the books of account were rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act. Hence, where the books of account are rejected and GP rate is applied, then no other addition is required to be made. 7. Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions

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

disallowance of Rs. 10,07,935/- made by the Ld. AO. 4. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter or add to the above grounds of appeal, before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” 3. When the appeal was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of assessee to represent his case. There is no application

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

section 194C of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has concurred with the observation of the ld. Assessing Officer without taking a rebuttal of the assessee on the issue of regarding details of TDS deduction on the freight payment if any, accordingly, the issue of TDS is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh

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)

6 ITA No. 298(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, holding that since no substantial question was involved, the appeal was being dismissed. The reasoning of the Tribunal is as follows: "In the present case before us the assessee has deducted tax u/s. 194C(2) of the Act being payments made

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

disallowance was made u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.49,573/-. In support the assessee took the plea that the amount was paid not payable. So the section 40(a)(ia) will not be applicable. The assessee paid the transporter amount of Rs.22,850/- and on date 26.06.2006 and dated 27.02.2007 amount of Rs.22,850/-, accordingly the total amount

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"

6 of appeal states that Pr.CIT has erred in passing order under section 263 of the Act, which is illegal and without jurisdiction and Pr.CIT has grossly erred in holding the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, even though the AO has carried out necessary enquiries by issue

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