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

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

138/- (+) Rs. 60,42,864/-] made from the aforementioned parties an amount aggregating to Rs. 1,05,56,012/- [Rs. 61,54,438/- (+) Rs. 44,01,571/-] was outstanding as payable to them as on 31.03.2008. Observing, that the assessee had shown bogus creditors of Rs. 1,05,56,012/- in his ‘books of accounts’, the A.O added the same

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

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

138/- (+) Rs. 60,42,864/-] made from the aforementioned parties an amount aggregating to Rs. 1,05,56,012/- [Rs. 61,54,438/- (+) Rs. 44,01,571/-] was outstanding as payable to them as on 31.03.2008. Observing, that the assessee had shown bogus creditors of Rs. 1,05,56,012/- in his ‘books of accounts’, the A.O added the same

HIMALYA SPINNING MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

138 taxmann.com 141 Anantpur Kalpana v. Income-tax Officer (ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'SMC-B) (Since the sale proceeds for which cash was received from the customers was already admitted as income and if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which