SHRI BILAS CHAND,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17

sections, i.e., by mistake, and that he had revised his return accordingly on 17.7.2017 (refer para 5 of the assessment order). The said return, however, while retaining the claim for deduction u/s. 80C at Rs.1.50 lacs, altered that for deduction u/s. 80E to ‘Loss from house property’, at, though, the same sum of Rs.1,50,472, returning thus his income

M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

5-11-2014 along with the resolution passed by the Execute Council of the University approving certain amendments to the VTU Act, as desired by the CIT. However, the CIT insisted on production of the amendments enacted by the state legislature. According to the assessee, this constrained him to withdraw the application on 27-05-2015 with a liberty

LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPHATIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

5-11-2014 along with the resolution passed by the Execute Council of the University approving certain amendments to the VTU Act, as desired by the CIT. However, the CIT insisted on production of the amendments enacted by the state legislature. According to the assessee, this constrained him to withdraw the application on 27-05-2015 with a liberty

M/S LORD MAHAVIR HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE & HOSPITAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

5-11-2014 along with the resolution passed by the Execute Council of the University approving certain amendments to the VTU Act, as desired by the CIT. However, the CIT insisted on production of the amendments enacted by the state legislature. According to the assessee, this constrained him to withdraw the application on 27-05-2015 with a liberty

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

5 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary the grounds of appeal here in above at or before hearing of appeal.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee filed the return u/s 139 by pursuing section 147 the notice was issued u/s 148 and case was reopened. Thereafter, the assessment

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

property to which the aforesaid Notice u/s 148, dated 11.03.2015 was addressed, without putting up any efforts to locate the whereabouts of the assessee, which he could have easily gathered by going no further but referring/consulting the assessment records of the assessee, had however, most arbitrarily by way of an idle formality, or, in fact, an eye wash

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

property in question. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O was of the view that as the total consideration of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- (supra) had accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration, therefore, the LTCG therein arising to him, i.e, as provided in Sec. 45 r.w Sec. 48 of the Act was liable to be brought

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

property in question. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O was of the view that as the total consideration of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- (supra) had accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration, therefore, the LTCG therein arising to him, i.e, as provided in Sec. 45 r.w Sec. 48 of the Act was liable to be brought

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

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

5. Determination: 1. Disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961amounting to Rs.552429/- in respect of Clearing House charges: “The A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs. 552429/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for non-deduction of tax u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act,1961 on MICR charges paid in respect

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

section 271F. Therefore, the penalty of Rs.5,000/- levied by the AO vide his order dated 21.05.2018 u/s 271F is sustained. 7. The assessee contends in grounds that ld. CIT(A) has wrongly held that Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared before AO in the penalty proceedings but not mentioned about the sale of property at which the appellant residing

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

house property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

house property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned