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

bogus expenses in the form of purchases to the tune of Rs. 4,15,20,133/- and unexplained receipts to the tune of Rs. 86,25,29,622/- has escaped taxation for the A. Y. 2011-12. Accordingly this is a case fit for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income

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

bogus purchase from the parties mentioned above. The same issue was further agitated by issuing notice under section 263 of the Act. The same PCIT approved the reopening under section 151

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

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

151 of the Act. During hearing before he ld. PCIT, the ld. AR submitted the following details which are enclosed in APB page 1 to 16. The relevant paragraph of assessee’s submission is extracted as below: 13. Now coming to the issues raised in the SCN as regards the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,97,93,175/- from

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

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

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

151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also the approval granted is without DIN. 4. (a) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO, in making an addition of Rs.2,11,81,016/-, on account

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

151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also the approval granted is without DIN. 4. (a) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO, in making an addition of Rs.2,11,81,016/-, on account

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

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

section 143(1), Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment proceedings subsequently on basis of information supplied by Investigation wing of department that assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties. 6 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (ii) Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) (iii) Priya Blue Industries [2021] 130 taxmann.com 492 (Gujarat

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

151 of the act by way of writing “Yes, It is a fit case”, in the approval form, as we understand that the Addl./Joint CIT was not required to reiterate the reasons recorded by the assessing officer under section 147 of the act. Thus ground number 3 and 4 of the appellant are rejected. Adjudication on merits

KUNDAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHI CHOWK, SADAR BAZAR, MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 143(1) returns of income filed by assessee for assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 and subsequently, he reopened said assessments on sole basis that assessee had not filed returns for years preceding to assessment year 2004-05 and, therefore, its income having escaped assessment, reopening of assessment was on basis of suspicion and non-existent and incorrect

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before