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

Assessing Officer in reopening of the case u/s 148 on account of alleged bogus purchases of Rice Phuck and Nakku

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

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

reopening proceedings commencing from reasons recorded to assessment has been solely and wholly based on the statement of the person Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta. 9. Subsequently assessment completed with an addition of Rs.1.98 crores (being the sum total of alleged bogus purchase

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

reopening also has been properly done. The assessment as such is very much sustainable and is not bad in the eyes of law. 4.3 The investigation report and the enquiries carried out by the AO show that the purchases are bogus

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

reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary-Interest allowed as deduction in original assessment subsequently ITO found that creditors were name-lenders-Confession from creditors There was nothing to show that the confession related to a loan advanced to assessee-The live link or close nexus between material before ITO and belief he was to form regarding escapement of income

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

reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary-Interest allowed as deduction in original assessment subsequently ITO found that creditors were name-lenders-Confession from creditors There was nothing to show that the confession related to a loan advanced to assessee-The live link or close nexus between material before ITO and belief he was to form regarding escapement of income

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

purchases made from said 18 parties, being bogus and unverifiable, was required to be added as against the addition of Rs.9,24,491/- made on account of 5% VAT disallowed. ii) Firstly, for reopening of this case, when it had already been assessed

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

purchase accounts submitted by the assessee earlier nor can be cross verified from the vendors in such a short span of time. It is observed that the assessee was requested to furnish such information as early as on 06.08.2019 but the assessee chose to furnish the bills on 29.12.2019 when the lime limitation to complete the assessment proceedings is just

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

purchase accounts submitted by the assessee earlier nor can be cross verified from the vendors in such a short span of time. It is observed that the assessee was requested to furnish such information as early as on 06.08.2019 but the assessee chose to furnish the bills on 29.12.2019 when the lime limitation to complete the assessment proceedings is just

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR, C.R. BUILDING, CIVIL LINES, JALANDHAR vs. SH. JATINDER GUPTA, JALANDHAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 554/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Jatinder Gupta Dcit (Prop. Mahajan Molasses Co.) बनाम/ Circle-4 Gt Road, Dyalpur, Jalandhar Jalandhar-144001 Vs. Punjab-144001 "ायीलेखासं./Pan. Aempg-6663-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 484/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit Shri Jatinder Gupta Circle-4, Jalandhar-144001 बनाम/ (Prop. Mahajan Molasses Co.) Punjab Gt Road, Dyalpur, Jalandhar Vs. Punjab-144001 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Aempg-6663-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Ashray Sarna (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jivandeep Singh Kahlon (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]

reopened pursuant to receipt of information from ITO- 4(3), Abohar assessing another entity i.e., M/s Modern Sales Corporation that the assessee made bogus purchase

JATINDER GUPTA,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, JALANDHAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 554/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Jatinder Gupta Dcit (Prop. Mahajan Molasses Co.) बनाम/ Circle-4 Gt Road, Dyalpur, Jalandhar Jalandhar-144001 Vs. Punjab-144001 "ायीलेखासं./Pan. Aempg-6663-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 484/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit Shri Jatinder Gupta Circle-4, Jalandhar-144001 बनाम/ (Prop. Mahajan Molasses Co.) Punjab Gt Road, Dyalpur, Jalandhar Vs. Punjab-144001 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Aempg-6663-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Ashray Sarna (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jivandeep Singh Kahlon (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]

reopened pursuant to receipt of information from ITO- 4(3), Abohar assessing another entity i.e., M/s Modern Sales Corporation that the assessee made bogus purchase

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 allegedly made by the assessee from M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. 17 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 According to the revenue, the Director of M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. in his statement had stated that there were no sales / purchases but the transactions were only accommodation bills not involving

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

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

reopened on the basis of information that assessee company had invested an amount of Rs 30,44,550/- by cheque, Rs 1 Crore by cash to purchase land from Baldev Singh R/0 Village Heir, Palah Sahib Road, Amritsar and also invested an amount of Rs 53,98,000/- in cash for the purchase of land from Sh Malook Singh during

WANI IRON STEEL,SRINAGAR vs. WARD 1 SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.462/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITO Ward-1, Vs. Wani Iron Steel, Nowga, Srinagar. Nowgam Bye Pass Srinagar. Jammu & Kashmir. [PAN:-AAAFW6802G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Vipul Arora, CA. Appellant by Respondent by Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.04.2025 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M. : Both the above appeals filed by the Assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR vs. WANI IRON STEEL, NOWGAM BY PASS

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.462/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITO Ward-1, Vs. Wani Iron Steel, Nowga, Srinagar. Nowgam Bye Pass Srinagar. Jammu & Kashmir. [PAN:-AAAFW6802G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Vipul Arora, CA. Appellant by Respondent by Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.04.2025 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M. : Both the above appeals filed by the Assessee

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

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

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

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

reopened on period of limitation as argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee under section 149 of the Act. As regards the 56 principles laid down by the various courts of law, the issue is with regard to formation of industrial undertaking has been examined in the initial assessment year and once the claim has been allowed especially under

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

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

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

reopened on period of limitation as argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee under section 149 of the Act. As regards the 56 principles laid down by the various courts of law, the issue is with regard to formation of industrial undertaking has been examined in the initial assessment year and once the claim has been allowed especially under

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

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

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

reopened on period of limitation as argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee under section 149 of the Act. As regards the 56 principles laid down by the various courts of law, the issue is with regard to formation of industrial undertaking has been examined in the initial assessment year and once the claim has been allowed especially under

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

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

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

reopened on period of limitation as argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee under section 149 of the Act. As regards the 56 principles laid down by the various courts of law, the issue is with regard to formation of industrial undertaking has been examined in the initial assessment year and once the claim has been allowed especially under