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

11. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition on account of bogus purchases, by observingas under: - “Information is available on 'record with the AO from Investigation Wing of the Department regarding bogus bills issued by Shri Madan Lal Pahuja; who was operating a number of concerns for this purpo,le. A statement of Shri Madan. Lal Pahuja was recorded

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

section 143(3) on being questioned about the purchases made from the said concern., in his detailed replies along with documentary evidences filed with the Assessing officer provided all the copies of Purchase Invoices, Confirmation of Truck numbers from Vahan, Reverse Side of purchase invoices duly mentioning the weight confirmation, Stacking details, Shortages if any, Cash discounts deducted

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

section 143(3) on being questioned about the purchases made from the said concern., in his detailed replies along with documentary evidences filed with the Assessing officer provided all the copies of Purchase Invoices, Confirmation of Truck numbers from Vahan, Reverse Side of purchase invoices duly mentioning the weight confirmation, Stacking details, Shortages if any, Cash discounts deducted

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

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

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

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

11 I.T.A. No. 9/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 allegation of bogus purchase of Rs. 97.69 lakhs and bogus sales Rs. One Crore, levelled against the assessee is a very meagre amount when compared to the whole, and also serves no purpose to the assessee considering the net effect of alleged bogus sales with alleged bogus purchase ( 1.00 minus 97.69 ), because

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 69C: SLP dismissed. 10 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex Pvt Ltd. v. ITO & Ors (iii) Judgement iin the case of PCIT vs. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia as reported in ( [2022] 145 taxmann.com 546 (Bombay) INCOME TAX: Where Assessing Officer made addition by disallowing expenses on purchases on ground that an information was received from sales tax department that assessee

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

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

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

section 132. 5. That on the facts & circumstances of the case addition of total amount of alleged purchases is illegal as department on similar facts has made additions of only 5% profit element embedded in such purchases.” 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of running a Solvent Extraction Plant, Cotton factory

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D