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

206(ASR)/2011 is dismissed". Since the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench, has already held that the Bank was not required to deduct any tax at source on its interest payments to Jammu Development Authority, the AO was not justified in applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) on these payments. Similar type of disallowance

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

206(ASR)/2011 is dismissed". Since the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench, has already held that the Bank was not required to deduct any tax at source on its interest payments to Jammu Development Authority, the AO was not justified in applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) on these payments. Similar type of 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

206(ASR)/2011 is dismissed". Since the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench, has already held that the Bank was not required to deduct any tax at source on its interest payments to Jammu Development Authority, the AO was not justified in applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) on these payments. Similar type of 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

206(ASR)/2011 is dismissed". Since the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench, has already held that the Bank was not required to deduct any tax at source on its interest payments to Jammu Development Authority, the AO was not justified in applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) on these payments. Similar type of disallowance

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

206(ASR)/2011 is dismissed". Since the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench, has already held that the Bank was not required to deduct any tax at source on its interest payments to Jammu Development Authority, the AO was not justified in applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) on these payments. Similar type of disallowance

THE DALLA CO OP AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-, PHAGWARA

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

disallowed by observing as follows (Para – 7 of assessment order): “7. In view of the above facts of the case, interest income earned by the assessee from investments/FDRs in Co- operative/Nationalised bank held as 'not attributable' to the business activities of providing credit facilities to its members and is being treated as 'Income from other sources' as per provisions

GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" I.T.A. No. 132/Asr/2022 11 Assessment Year: 2016-17 This question has been answered in favour of the assessee in the case of Dy.CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. [2008] 298ITR 194/167 Taxman 206 (SC). Consequently, the civil appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with no order as to costs

DE vs. ON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMUVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

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

disallowance of Rs.3,54,311/- be allowed and appeal accepted.” Devson Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt./Dy.CIT 5. The learned additional CIT DR supported the impugned order. He contended that what is claimed by the assessee relates to incentives paid to its employees and no way related to the sales commission. The learned CIT appeal was therefore justified in confirming

DE vs. ON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMUVS.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

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

disallowance of Rs.3,54,311/- be allowed and appeal accepted.” Devson Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt./Dy.CIT 5. The learned additional CIT DR supported the impugned order. He contended that what is claimed by the assessee relates to incentives paid to its employees and no way related to the sales commission. The learned CIT appeal was therefore justified in confirming

SHRI SUKHJINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. PRINICPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

206/- on various dates from M/s Rana Sugars Limited through NEFT and not in cash. Furthermore, perusal of certificate issued by the commission agent namely M/s. Amar Nath Kashmiri Lai shows that you have received an amount of Rs.2,77,320/- only till 08.11.2016 on various dates but mode of payment has not been mentioned in the certificate. Therefore, your

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

206, the copy of bank statements related to reflection of transaction, received from the party. iv) APB page nos. 207 to 210, TDS Certificate in Form 16A related to deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR fully denied that the assessee had no transaction with the RolmexInternational, as alleged by the revenue. The ld. AR placed that the details

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

206 TTJ (Asr) 513 Karamjit Singh Rai vs ITO Reassessment-Reason to believe-Absence of material and rational belief-AO mainly relied upon information derived from AIR to the effect that assessee has purchased immovable property and reopened the assessment after recording the reason that the assessee failed to explain the source of investment in the property-Reasons recorded nowhere