ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED , TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

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

Bogus accommodation entry with the help of Sh. Raman Arora Regarding M/s. Dashmesh Agro Exports, it was submitted that the purchases are genuine and there was no cash withdrawal against assessee's payment. It is claimed that M/s. Dashmesh Agro Exports was the existing party during the year and purchases made were genuine. It is also submitted that the payments

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

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

deduction u/s 80IB and determined his total income at Rs. 34,22,312/-. Subsequently, on the basis of facts gathered in the course of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the immediately succeeding year i.e A.Y 2009-10, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee during the year under consideration had booked bogus purchases

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

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

deduction u/s 80IB and determined his total income at Rs. 34,22,312/-. Subsequently, on the basis of facts gathered in the course of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the immediately succeeding year i.e A.Y 2009-10, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee during the year under consideration had booked bogus purchases

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

deduction u/s 80IB and determined his total income at Rs. 34,22,312/-. Subsequently, on the basis of facts gathered in the course of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the immediately succeeding year i.e A.Y 2009-10, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee during the year under consideration had booked bogus purchases

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

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

deduction u/s 80IB and determined his total income at Rs. 34,22,312/-. Subsequently, on the basis of facts gathered in the course of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the immediately succeeding year i.e A.Y 2009-10, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee during the year under consideration had booked bogus purchases

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus purchases, ignoring the quantitative tally as maintained by the Assessee and the sales against such purchases of wheat having not been doubted and also not considering the binding 3 Bhai Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Pr. CIT Vs. Tejua Rohit kumar Kapadi as reported in 94 taxmann.com

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

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

bogus purchases by either accepting credits by way of cheques/RTGS, etc or by way of giving debits through cheques & RTGS and sometimes, the transactions are done in cash but no actual delivery of goods viz paddy/rice is not taken. In view of the statement of Sh. Dinesh Jain, it is revealed that the transactions were made by assessee

SH. VIKRAM JAIN,AMRITSAR. vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes on the terms afore-stated

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 336/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

deduction (of the corresponding purchase cost) where it exceeds Rs. 20,000/- per day (s. 40A(3)), a fiscal disincentive no genuine trader would want or intend to invite. Yes, of course, the assessee cannot stop any person to pay in cash, but if only the assessee, who rather fails to disclose the identity of these persons, who cannot

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

bogus Long-Term Capital Gains. The purchasers of these scrips do not have creditworthiness. No prudent investor and particularly trader or investor in stock will invest in such company. The gains made by the appellant are altogether beyond human probabilities. The meticulous paper work of routing the transactions through banking channel is futile because the profits shown are beyond human

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

bogus Long-Term Capital Gains. The purchasers of these scrips do not have creditworthiness. No prudent investor and particularly trader or investor in stock will invest in such company. The gains made by the appellant are altogether beyond human probabilities. The meticulous paper work of routing the transactions through banking channel is futile because the profits shown are beyond human

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

deduction u/s. 80-IB posits a genuine business activity, resulting in business profits derived from an industrial undertaking, while in the present case the purchase and sale itself has been held as bogus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH. M/S NOVELTY SWEETS, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

bogus losses to be set off with the amount of surrendered income when it is a clear cut fact that accounts of the assessee were not maintained properly? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not appreciating that the assessee had incurred losses in the relevant year only

SHRI DARPAN JAIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX WARD - 1(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

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

deduction of Rs 4,42,244.73 on account of interest to Bank, The assessee had made non- commercial advance of Rs 45,00.000.00 to his wife for purchase of immovable property, The utilization of borrowed funds for non business purposes attracts disallowance of interest claimed as expenditure. Hence Addition of Rs.360000.00 (Rs 45 Lakhs x 10% x 8/12) towards disallowance

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

purchase has been accepted as genuine and a deduction therefore has been allowed. Therefore, it is prayed, that additions confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted.” 16. We have heard the Addl. CIT D.R., perused the material on records, written submission filed by the assessee and the judgments relied upon. It Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO is undisputed fact

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

purchase has been accepted as genuine and a deduction therefore has been allowed. Therefore, it is prayed, that additions confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted.” 16. We have heard the Addl. CIT D.R., perused the material on records, written submission filed by the assessee and the judgments relied upon. It Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO is undisputed fact

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

purchase of agricultural land u/s 54B calculated the capital gain in all the three cases as under:- S.No. Name of Assessee Capital Gain Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

purchase of agricultural land u/s 54B calculated the capital gain in all the three cases as under:- S.No. Name of Assessee Capital Gain Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

purchase of agricultural land u/s 54B calculated the capital gain in all the three cases as under:- S.No. Name of Assessee Capital Gain Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before