MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Undisclosed cash purchases) - Assessing Officer made addition on account of undisclosed cash purchases and bogus sundry creditors - However, details of ledger account and copies of bill clearly indicated that purchases were made from these parties and payments were made through bank - All payments were made by account payee cheque which

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

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

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

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

14& AY 2015-16, the addition has been made by the AO for purchases made from the said party under the heading "Bogus Purchases entry with the help of Sh. Raman Kumar". It is important to note that nothing pertaining to the assessee/appellant is found from Sh. Raman Kumar either for purchases, sales or payments. Sh. Raman Kumar

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

14& AY 2015-16, the addition has been made by the AO for purchases made from the said party under the heading "Bogus Purchases entry with the help of Sh. Raman Kumar". It is important to note that nothing pertaining to the assessee/appellant is found from Sh. Raman Kumar either for purchases, sales or payments. Sh. Raman Kumar

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

14. He further submitted on merits, drawing reference to the trading profit and loss a/c (contained in PB page -24 to 25) that the total sales of RICE for the year under appeal is disclosed at Rs. 12.26 crores against a purchase of 11.72 crores, and the 11 I.T.A. No. 9/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 allegation of bogus purchase

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

section 68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were indulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during Investigation, Impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were to be deleted

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 , KAPUTHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, ITA

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

Section 263 also provides that the order which is passed without making inquiries/verification, which should have been made, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. Therefore, the said order passed on 29.12.2016 is set-aside to the file of the assessing officer to pass fresh order, after making

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

purchases were bogus. In this case the appellant is able to show only paper trail and not establish that the goods have really moved. That paper trail gets busted once the supplier said that he had not supplied the goods. There is no evidence of transport engaged by anyone. The supplier in fact is an accommodation entry provider provided bogus

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

purchases are shown on credit of much longer period from bogus and paper concerns. M/s Narula Solvex P Ltd. is a sister concern of the assessee company, operates in same line of business, managed by common management and accordingly it is natural that similar practice is adopted by the assessee also.” 6.1 Related argumentby challenging the maintainability of section 153D