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

bogus purchase and sale transactions ignoring the Fund Flow Statement as well as various case laws that in a situation like this only the extra margin of profit earned, if any, could be added. 5. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,98,47,645 made

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

139 140) "INCOME TAX: SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where Assessing Officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares an basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not connected with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so- called

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

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, "belongs to; or 7 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain

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

section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were bogus as company ‘C’ whose shares were allegedly purchased was a penny stock, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed.” 12. Before concluding, the Ld DR has relied on the Hon’ble Calcutta High court decision

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

section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were bogus as company ‘C’ whose shares were allegedly purchased was a penny stock, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed.” 12. Before concluding, the Ld DR has relied on the Hon’ble Calcutta High court decision

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 139(2) of the Act. The Tribunal cannot enter into a reappraisal of evidence after taking into consideration the additional evidence produced by the assessee before it in a proceeding arising out of a best judgment assessment.’ In other words, there is no scope for admission of additional evidence in the facts and circumstances of the case, making

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

139(1) of the Act has been duly processed accepting the returned income at Rs. 1,66,22,770/- u/s 143(1) , and thereafter, on the basis of information received by the AO , Bhatinda, ( i.e. the AO of the assessee ) , from ACIT – Central circle – 2(1) , Ahmedabad, that a search conducted u/s 132 of the Act on DRAIPL group

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

139(1) of the Act has been duly processed accepting the returned income at Rs. 1,66,22,770/- u/s 143(1) , and thereafter, on the basis of information received by the AO , Bhatinda, ( i.e. the AO of the assessee ) , from ACIT – Central circle – 2(1) , Ahmedabad, that a search conducted u/s 132 of the Act on DRAIPL group

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

SHRI SHADI LAL JAIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD II (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed in the

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

139(1). The assessee sold the ornament to Bishan Dass Mukesh Kumar, Delhi for consideration amount to Rs.3,28,500/- in the impugned assessment year. The ld. AO taken this transaction as accommodation entry and the whole amount was I.T.A. No. 59/Asr/2013 3 Assessment Year: 1998-99 added back with the commission of 2%. Accordingly, the total amount works

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

purchase of agricultural land u/s 54B calculated the capital gain in all the three cases as under:- S.No. Name of Assessee Capital Gain Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

purchase of agricultural land u/s 54B calculated the capital gain in all the three cases as under:- S.No. Name of Assessee Capital Gain Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

purchase of agricultural land u/s 54B calculated the capital gain in all the three cases as under:- S.No. Name of Assessee Capital Gain Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before

AAPNA MARBLE,G T ROAD BHUCHO KALAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE II BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

139(1) of the Act 61, disclosing an income of Rs. 46,30,280/- (including the additional income of Rs. 40 lakhs , disclosed in survey covering excess stock and cash ) on a gross sales of Rs. 4.06 crores along with audited financials supported by books of accounts which are produced and examined in course of scrutiny. 9. Various queries were