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

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

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

4. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs. 51,57,053/- which was chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2011- 12 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. To assess this income and also any other income chargeable

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

purchase expenses for material. 3. In view of the facts, enquiry letter, No 1465 dated 14.03.2019 was Issued to the assessee u/s 133(6) of the Act after, obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority and the assessee was required to explain details of work done on behalf of M/s Dineshchandra R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd, copies of sub contract

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

purchase expenses for material. 3. In view of the facts, enquiry letter, No 1465 dated 14.03.2019 was Issued to the assessee u/s 133(6) of the Act after, obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority and the assessee was required to explain details of work done on behalf of M/s Dineshchandra R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd, copies of sub contract