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

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

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

bogus purchases being made from the parties. The Ld. AR submitted that that the reopening u/s 148 is bad in law and has raised certain legal aspects which are as under: I. No evidence available with the department at the time of recording of reasons.The only information available with the department was the stand- alone statement of Madan Lal Pahuja

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

section 151 of the Act." Notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act,1961 was issued on 30.03.2018 and served on assessee on 30.03.2018. In response to the notice u/s 148, assessee e-filed his return on 26.12.2018 at a income of Rs. 77,66,950/-. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 15.10.2018, fixing the case for hearing

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

section 151 of the Act." Notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act,1961 was issued on 30.03.2018 and served on assessee on 30.03.2018. In response to the notice u/s 148, assessee e-filed his return on 26.12.2018 at a income of Rs. 77,66,950/-. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 15.10.2018, fixing the case for hearing

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

2,43,78,214/- from M/s Evergreen Sales Corporation, Fazilka) 6.10 Accordingly, addition of Rs. 5,86,710/- (i.e. 1.2% of Rs. 4,88,92,578) is upheld out of the total addition of Rs.6,43,54,912/-.” 6. Regarding the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act which has been challenged by the assesee before

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

2 of sub-section 1 of 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

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

148 of the Act for reassessment proceedings was not valid.” 9 I.T.A. No. 9/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 12. He further submitted that all the invoices of purchases and sales now alleged as bogus were already recorded in regular books , and examined in course of regular assessment u/s 143(3) and accepted and there is nothing new which has been

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

2. That learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld rejection of submitted evidence of government records establishing movement of claimed purchases. 3. That the appellant was not allowed sought opportunity of hearing through video conference. 4. That assessment framed on the facts & circumstances of the case is illegal which could only be made under section 153c as document on the basis

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

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

2 months. It shows clearly that the amount of purchases from this party for this period is Rs. 22,13,148/- against which payments amounting to Rs. 21,82,346/- have been made and balance of Rs. 30,802/- has been struck. This single page makes the actual state of affairs of the assessee quite clear. It clearly shows that

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

2 months. It shows clearly that the amount of purchases from this party for this period is Rs. 22,13,148/- against which payments amounting to Rs. 21,82,346/- have been made and balance of Rs. 30,802/- has been struck. This single page makes the actual state of affairs of the assessee quite clear. It clearly shows that

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

2 months. It shows clearly that the amount of purchases from this party for this period is Rs. 22,13,148/- against which payments amounting to Rs. 21,82,346/- have been made and balance of Rs. 30,802/- has been struck. This single page makes the actual state of affairs of the assessee quite clear. It clearly shows that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVTE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

2 months. It shows clearly that the amount of purchases from this party for this period is Rs. 22,13,148/- against which payments amounting to Rs. 21,82,346/- have been made and balance of Rs. 30,802/- has been struck. This single page makes the actual state of affairs of the assessee quite clear. It clearly shows that

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

2 months. It shows clearly that the amount of purchases from this party for this period is Rs. 22,13,148/- against which payments amounting to Rs. 21,82,346/- have been made and balance of Rs. 30,802/- has been struck. This single page makes the actual state of affairs of the assessee quite clear. It clearly shows that