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

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

bogus, and thus vacate the addition of Rs. 1,05,56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu

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

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

bogus, and thus vacate the addition of Rs. 1,05,56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

purchases which was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) However, Tribunal had held that capitalization could not be denied to assessee merely on a statement given by director of assessee, without 12 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex Pvt Ltd. v. ITO & Ors adducing evidence of other necessary parties It was found that assessee had produced certain documents including ledger extracts

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

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

bogus. I.T.A. No.17/Asr/2021 10 Assessment Year: 2011-12 viii) One more point, important and relevant to part with, is that the assessee in that year, had a fleet of about 25 trucks of his own, besides a tractor trolley, (as evident from the schedule of fixed assets enclosed at Page 82), deployed to lift the stocks of rice husk from

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

exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were bogus as company ‘C’ whose shares were allegedly purchased

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

exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were bogus as company ‘C’ whose shares were allegedly purchased

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

bogus, and the production figures manipulated, with the unit manufacturing only electrical 8 ITO v. Neeraj Aggarwal lamination. It is this that led to his ‘rejection’ of the assessee’s accounts as not reliable. The AO’s stating of the rejection of the assessee’s accounts has to be therefore understood in this context, i.e., of the same having been

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 2 That the ld.CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in law and on facts in confirming the findings of the AO that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by appellant are not genuine but bogus

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 2 That the ld.CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in law and on facts in confirming the findings of the AO that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by appellant are not genuine but bogus

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 2 That the ld.CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in law and on facts in confirming the findings of the AO that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by appellant are not genuine but bogus

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 2 That the ld.CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in law and on facts in confirming the findings of the AO that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by appellant are not genuine but bogus

SHRI SHADI LAL JAIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD II (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed in the

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

bogus, was about three & half times the purchases of Rs. 36.60 crores shown by Bemco in its jewellery business. Added to these are the facts that even in the seized material there was a letterhead of Bemco which showed Jai Sidhi Apartments at Ahmedabad as the branch office of Bemco which means that the claim of Bemco that

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

exempt from assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 as per the provisions of section 54E. It was submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had observed that as per section 45(1), any profit or gain arising from 12 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO transfer of capital assets affected

SANT BABA JIWAN SINGH KAR SEWA,TARN TARAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

Exemptions), [in brevity the CIT(E)] bearing Order No. ITBA/EXM/S/EXM1/2018-19/1014654090(1), order passed u/s 12AA (1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act), date of order 29.12.2018, for A.Y. 2018-19. I.T.A. No.117/Asr/2019 2 2. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a trust and filed application for registration u/s 12AA

MESERS SHRI SWAMI SHANKARNATH PARVAT CHARITABLE AND WELFARE TRUST ,KAPURTHALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

bogus, artificial and whether these are in accordance with the objects of the institution. The scope of enquiry does not extend beyond that pint...." 20. That the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v Red Rose School [2007] 163 Taxman 19 (Allahabad) held that: "Section 12AA, which lays down the 10 procedure for registration, does

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

Bogus because the DRP has issued the directions for enhancement of income without making any independent inquiry. I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 6 Assessment Year: 2018-19 5.1. That the Ld. AO NFAC has erred on facts & law invoking the provisions ofsection 115BBE of the Act and charging the special rate of tax, which is highly unjustified. 6. That the appellant craves leave

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus sundry creditors without rejecting the books of accounts and without invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. As such the addition made is bad and is illegal in the eyes of law and the same may be deleted.’ 4. Before us, the thrust of the assessee’s case was that no fresh notices were