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

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

5. That the A>o did not appreciate that even otherwise the rate of profit shown during the year under consideration was consistent and reasonable and by following the theory of A.O the rate of profit will shoot up to that extent which is impossible in this line of business. As such the A.O has grossly erred in making

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

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

5. That the A>o did not appreciate that even otherwise the rate of profit shown during the year under consideration was consistent and reasonable and by following the theory of A.O the rate of profit will shoot up to that extent which is impossible in this line of business. As such the A.O has grossly erred in making

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

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

5. That the A>o did not appreciate that even otherwise the rate of profit shown during the year under consideration was consistent and reasonable and by following the theory of A.O the rate of profit will shoot up to that extent which is impossible in this line of business. As such the A.O has grossly erred in making

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

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

5. That the A>o did not appreciate that even otherwise the rate of profit shown during the year under consideration was consistent and reasonable and by following the theory of A.O the rate of profit will shoot up to that extent which is impossible in this line of business. As such the A.O has grossly erred in making

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

5 (SC) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kishore Kumar Mohapatra". (Judgment Set-1, pages 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

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

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

139 (5) of the Act was filed before the Assessing Officer. We answer both the question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and in favour of assessee”. Ground No. 3 9. Ground No. 3, not pressed. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 32 Assessment Year: 2018-19 10. The ld. AR argued that the assessee paidcommission during financial year Rs.4

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

5. Sir, it is brought to your knowledge that assessee regularly incurred sale/purchase transactions relating to shares listed on stock exchange and this share was only one of them. The other shares includes MRF Ltd.. Voltas Ltd., Asian Paints. Apollo Tyres, Amtec Autos, etc, over the period of three years. 14 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years

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

5. Sir, it is brought to your knowledge that assessee regularly incurred sale/purchase transactions relating to shares listed on stock exchange and this share was only one of them. The other shares includes MRF Ltd.. Voltas Ltd., Asian Paints. Apollo Tyres, Amtec Autos, etc, over the period of three years. 14 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years

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

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

purchase of vehicles and homes etc. and the periods of such financing not less than one yearupto five years. He noticed that on such transaction during the selling expenses, stamping fees and commission paid to selling agents, could not be treated as expenditure related to the year in which, the transaction took place as the period of financing was more

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

purchase of vehicles and homes etc. and the periods of such financing not less than one yearupto five years. He noticed that on such transaction during the selling expenses, stamping fees and commission paid to selling agents, could not be treated as expenditure related to the year in which, the transaction took place as the period of financing was more

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

purchase of vehicles and homes etc. and the periods of such financing not less than one yearupto five years. He noticed that on such transaction during the selling expenses, stamping fees and commission paid to selling agents, could not be treated as expenditure related to the year in which, the transaction took place as the period of financing was more

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

purchase of vehicles and homes etc. and the periods of such financing not less than one yearupto five years. He noticed that on such transaction during the selling expenses, stamping fees and commission paid to selling agents, could not be treated as expenditure related to the year in which, the transaction took place as the period of financing was more