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) 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

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

38(P&H), held as follows (head note): “—Reason to believe—Information from Survey Wing of the Department—AO can assume jurisdiction under s. 147 provided there is sufficient material before him and the existence of material must be real—Further, there must be nexus between the material and the escapement of income—AO has to record reasons showing

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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

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

38,05,431/-. The reassessments were initiated after search on the assessee, the purchases made from the party M/s Viroo Mal Mukh Raj were accepted by AO in reassessment proceedings vide order dated 29.12.2018. However, in the AY 2012-13 & AY 2015-16, the addition has been made by the AO for purchases made from the said party under

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

38,05,431/-. The reassessments were initiated after search on the assessee, the purchases made from the party M/s Viroo Mal Mukh Raj were accepted by AO in reassessment proceedings vide order dated 29.12.2018. However, in the AY 2012-13 & AY 2015-16, the addition has been made by the AO for purchases made from the said party under

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

10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares an basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not connected with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so- called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural Justice, Tribunal was Justified in deleting addition made by Assessing Officer

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. The first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: “On perusal of all the facts of the case, Form No. 35, AOs order and submission of the appellant the following chronology of the case is important: The case was reopened based on the information flagged from Insight portal of the tax department, wherein

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

10. The learned CIT DR argued In favour of revenue and relied on the order of revenue authorities. Related the reopening under section 148 and section 263 under there is same issue, bogus purchase. The learned CIT DR was unable to bring any country fact against the argument of ld. Counsel. 11. We heard the rival submission and relied

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 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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

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

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue