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

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

bogus purchases: Rs. 2,38,60,205/- (ii). addition towards unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 51,34,260/-; and (iii). addition/disallowance of cash purchases u/s 40A(3) of the Act: Rs. 2,86,96,452/-, the CIT(A) upheld the same. As regards the penalty

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

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

bogus purchases: Rs. 2,38,60,205/- (ii). addition towards unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 51,34,260/-; and (iii). addition/disallowance of cash purchases u/s 40A(3) of the Act: Rs. 2,86,96,452/-, the CIT(A) upheld the same. As regards the penalty

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

bogus sub contracts. 4. In regards to the above points, it is respectfully submitted as under: 4.1 It was requested then also that the agreement (letter of intent copy) currently is not available with the assessee company. At that time also, request was placed with DRA to provide copy of LOI covering the required information of margins and terms

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

bogus sub contracts. 4. In regards to the above points, it is respectfully submitted as under: 4.1 It was requested then also that the agreement (letter of intent copy) currently is not available with the assessee company. At that time also, request was placed with DRA to provide copy of LOI covering the required information of margins and terms

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

bogus. The same cannot be regarded as per se a validation of the purchases from the assessee, which, as afore-stated, are unsupported by evidence as to transportation. There is in fact no finding of incurring of the transportation cost by the assessee or it being incurred by the purchaser, in which case, where so, all that was needed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

penalty proceedings on the basis of the same notice. Also, the Court concurs with the CIT (A) and the ITAT that once the finding of the AO on bogus purchases

INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) -1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

penalty proceedings on the basis of the same notice. Also, the Court concurs with the CIT (A) and the ITAT that once the finding of the AO on bogus purchases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

penalty proceedings on the basis of the same notice. Also, the Court concurs with the CIT (A) and the ITAT that once the finding of the AO on bogus purchases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

penalty proceedings on the basis of the same notice. Also, the Court concurs with the CIT (A) and the ITAT that once the finding of the AO on bogus purchases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

penalty proceedings on the basis of the same notice. Also, the Court concurs with the CIT (A) and the ITAT that once the finding of the AO on bogus purchases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

penalty proceedings on the basis of the same notice. Also, the Court concurs with the CIT (A) and the ITAT that once the finding of the AO on bogus purchases

SH. MANGAT TREHAN ,HOSHIARPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 223/Asr/2019 is 10

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were also initiated. 3. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order and (he Ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed in appeal No. 447/09-10/CIT(A)/Jal, allowed I.T.A. No. 223/Asr/2019 6 relief of Rs.26,19.862'- to the assessee and confirmed the addition

AAPNA MARBLE,G T ROAD BHUCHO KALAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE II BATHINDA

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

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

bogus ( forced to be prepared at site document, as evident from the contents of para 6 and 7 of the affidavit ) and has no relation to the existing business of the assessee and the names depicted in such list of debtors , are all fictitious and the said persons named therein , do not simply exist . 14. He further submitted that

SMT. BANEET KAUR BHASIN,,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

purchase and sale the plea of eth assessee cannot be accepted. The details of these parties/creditors is given below: I.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 15 & ITA No. 251/Asr/2018 & ITA No. 263/Asr/2014 S.No Name of the party Amount M/s Archana Color Paint 798547/- 1. M/s Gurhar Kamal 799547/- 2. 3. M/s Harpreet Cloth house 798520/- 4. M/s Karan Enterprises 816641/- 5. M/s Stylish

SHRIMATI BANEET KAUR BHASIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

purchase and sale the plea of eth assessee cannot be accepted. The details of these parties/creditors is given below: I.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 15 & ITA No. 251/Asr/2018 & ITA No. 263/Asr/2014 S.No Name of the party Amount M/s Archana Color Paint 798547/- 1. M/s Gurhar Kamal 799547/- 2. 3. M/s Harpreet Cloth house 798520/- 4. M/s Karan Enterprises 816641/- 5. M/s Stylish

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR vs. SMT. BANEET KAUR BHASIN,, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

purchase and sale the plea of eth assessee cannot be accepted. The details of these parties/creditors is given below: I.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 15 & ITA No. 251/Asr/2018 & ITA No. 263/Asr/2014 S.No Name of the party Amount M/s Archana Color Paint 798547/- 1. M/s Gurhar Kamal 799547/- 2. 3. M/s Harpreet Cloth house 798520/- 4. M/s Karan Enterprises 816641/- 5. M/s Stylish

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS