MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

10%, ihich is fat' more 'than what has been declared by the appellant over a period of time. 4.20 It is well known that in the present times, all' economic frauds take place through the banking channels and therefore, the umbrage taken by the appellant that payments have been made through chectues 'and VAT has been paid cannot

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

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

bogus purchases. The AO did not appreciate that these were genuine purchases and all the purchases were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and their sales were duly accepted in toto. As such, the A.O has blown hot & cold in the same breath/. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu

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

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

bogus purchases. The AO did not appreciate that these were genuine purchases and all the purchases were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and their sales were duly accepted in toto. As such, the A.O has blown hot & cold in the same breath/. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu

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

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

bogus purchases. The AO did not appreciate that these were genuine purchases and all the purchases were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and their sales were duly accepted in toto. As such, the A.O has blown hot & cold in the same breath/. 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 purchases. The AO did not appreciate that these were genuine purchases and all the purchases were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and their sales were duly accepted in toto. As such, the A.O has blown hot & cold in the same breath/. 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

section 68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were indulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during Investigation, Impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were to be deleted

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

10 I.T.A. No. 9/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 a third party , recorded behind the back of the assessee, and utilized for this assessment, without allowing any opportunity of rebuttal , and he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Odeon Builders Pvt Ltd [2019] 110 taxmann.com 64 ( SC ) where the Hon’ble court

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 , KAPUTHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, ITA

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

34 of the paper book alleged claim of bogus purchase amount of Rs.4,05,57,307/-. The amount of bogus purchase was informed from the Sales Tax order. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had confronted about the alleged bogus purchase related to 8 different parties as provided by the Sales Tax Department. However, the assessee as per his reply

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

section 10(38) merely by relying on statements of accommodation entry providers which were recorded much before date of survey.” 27 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 26. Relying on the above decisions of various courts the tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Rama Mittal in ITA 26/ASR/2024

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

section 10(38) merely by relying on statements of accommodation entry providers which were recorded much before date of survey.” 27 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 26. Relying on the above decisions of various courts the tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Rama Mittal in ITA 26/ASR/2024

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

10. 200 TTJ (Jd) 273 Vined Commodities Ltd. ACIT AO having recorded reasons for reopening the assessee's assessment simply by taking note of the information received from the Addl. Director of IT (Inv.), without any verification or enquiry to form the conclusion that assessee's income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, without independent application of mind, the assumption

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

34 appeals were filed by both the assessees and the revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

34 appeals were filed by both the assessees and the revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

34 appeals were filed by both the assessees and the revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

34 appeals were filed by both the assessees and the revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

34 appeals were filed by both the assessees and the revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

34 appeals were filed by both the assessees and the revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

34 appeals were filed by both the assessees and the revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

34 appeals were filed by both the assessees and the revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income