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

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

e indulging in bogus billing activities. A.O. found that the purchases made by the assessee from these entities were bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income

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

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

e indulging in bogus billing activities. A.O. found that the purchases made by the assessee from these entities were bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income

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

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

e indulging in bogus billing activities. A.O. found that the purchases made by the assessee from these entities were bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income

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

13: “1. That the Id. CIT(A) has grossly misdirected himself in law and on facts, in upholding the validity of order passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3), by not appreciating the assessee's contentions that order is in gross violation of the principles of Natural Justice being passed without confronting the assessee or providing the copies of the statements

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

13: “1. That the Id. CIT(A) has grossly misdirected himself in law and on facts, in upholding the validity of order passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3), by not appreciating the assessee's contentions that order is in gross violation of the principles of Natural Justice being passed without confronting the assessee or providing the copies of the statements

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

e-mail caashokgupta@yahoo.co.in, but no compliance have been made by both the parties. The payments made by cheque against unaccounted purchases or sale to hawala operators was received back in cash. The amount shown as paid to the bogus party comes back to the Appellant as no purchases and sale are made from them. The cash so received back

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

1.e. Rs. 2,45,14,364/- from M/s Universal Foods Corporation, Fazilka and Rs 2,43,78,214/- from M/s Evergreen Sales Corporation, Fazilka) 6.10 Accordingly, addition of Rs. 5,86,710/- (i.e. 1.2% of Rs. 4,88,92,578) is upheld out of the total addition of Rs.6,43,54,912/-.” 6. Regarding the issue of reopening

MESERS SHRI SWAMI SHANKARNATH PARVAT CHARITABLE AND WELFARE TRUST ,KAPURTHALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

bogus, artificial and whether these are in accordance with the objects of the institution. The scope of enquiry does not extend beyond that pint...." 20. That the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v Red Rose School [2007] 163 Taxman 19 (Allahabad) held that: "Section 12AA, which lays down the 10 procedure for registration, does

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

1 to 16. The relevant paragraph of assessee’s submission is extracted as below: 13. Now coming to the issues raised in the SCN as regards the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,97,93,175/- from 18 parties, which are proposed to be disallowed, the humble assessee, while seeking not to give recourse to any such action, has to advance

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

purchase ESCerts. l. The energy saving certificates (ESCerts) are also issued as the energy saving also reduces the emission of carbon heat & gases. m. It is submitted that the receipts generated from the sale proceeds of RECs/ESCerts are not liable to tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections

JYOTI SAROOP GROVER PROP. MS SANT METAL INDUSTRIES SEKHU ROAD, WARD 7 MALOUT,PUNJAB vs. THE AO NFAC DELHI JURISDICTIONAL AO THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AMRITSAR, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 335/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Dcit - Central Circle (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) Amritsar बनाम/ Vs. Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Punjab-143001 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 434/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit - Central Circle Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Amritsar (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) बनाम/ Vs. Punjab-143001 Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana

13-05-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-12-2022. The sole that issue that fall for our consideration is addition of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee, by way of additional grounds, has also challenged the enhancement made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR vs. SMT. JYOTI SAROOP GROVER, MALOUT

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 335/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Dcit - Central Circle (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) Amritsar बनाम/ Vs. Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Punjab-143001 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 434/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit - Central Circle Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Amritsar (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) बनाम/ Vs. Punjab-143001 Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana

13-05-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-12-2022. The sole that issue that fall for our consideration is addition of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee, by way of additional grounds, has also challenged the enhancement made

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S. BISHAN STEEL INDUSTRIES, AMRITSAR.

In the result the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

1. At the outset, the Ld.DR, drawn our attention to the order passed by CIT(A), wherein he had decided as under:- 589/Asr/2014 & C.O. 52/Asr/2016 3 “The AO has not commented on those transactions of purchases where description of item, quantity of item, weightment slips, octorai slips are available and as such there is no discrepancy

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

1. That the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) dated 31.05.2024 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order

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

1. That the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) dated 31.05.2024 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order

SH. VIKRAM JAIN,AMRITSAR. vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes on the terms afore-stated

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 336/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

1) or accounting standards as notified under sub-section (2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144.’ That does not, however, mean that an assessment, where section 145(3) is invoked or becomes applicable, is an assessment u/s. 144. As such, nothing of consequence turns

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

section 143(1), Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment proceedings subsequently on basis of information supplied by Investigation wing of department that assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties. 6 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (ii) Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) (iii) Priya Blue Industries [2021] 130 taxmann.com 492 (Gujarat

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

1,18,79,150/-. The revenue has declared the entire transaction as the sham transaction and bogus during search. The revenue identified various company stock i.e. a stock having very low price,which provide through root of preferential allotment after some time the large scale manipulation in price of this shares is done to artificially inflated through market price