INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

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

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

THE BAGHAPURANA & CO OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFEIER-2, MOGA

In the result, ground nos

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

40A (7) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of ld. A.O. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us for further adjudication. 4. The detail observation was made by the ld. AO in his Order in para no. 2. The extract of order is reproducing as below

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

Section 40a(ia) states that any amount on which tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid then such sum shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits of business or profession'. d. In the present case, TDS was to be deducted

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COPREATIVE -BANK,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee has not pressed, ground no-3 is

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

40a(ia). 2. That the addition of Rs.64,29,240/-, as made by Id.AO, by disallowance out of the provisions for bad & doubtful debts made at Rs.80 lacs, has been wrongly upheld by ld.CIT(A), without appreciating that the said provision was not made against standard loans, but against the aggregate advances made by rural branches of the Bank