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

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to appellant, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to appellant

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

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

bogus, and thus vacate the addition of Rs. 1,05,56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 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, and thus vacate the addition of Rs. 1,05,56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 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, and thus vacate the addition of Rs. 1,05,56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 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, and thus vacate the addition of Rs. 1,05,56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu

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

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities

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

1,99,38,775/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge in bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities