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

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

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

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

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

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

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

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

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

M/S HOLY FAITH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.181/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Holy Faith International Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Mbd House, Central Circle-Ii, Railway Road, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach6111J Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jalandhar. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Worthy Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-1, Jalandhar Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Contention Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Case U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act And, Thus, Framing Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S.143(3)/153C At An Income Of Rs. 4,95,13,441/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 4,63,33,441/-. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering That There Was No Reason To Believe That The Income Of The

section 147 is not satisfied with regard to reopening the case beyond 4 years. Now, the point wise explanation of the above points are provided as under: 1.4 It is submitted that the case of the assessee has already been assessed u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act and the then Ld. AO has applied his mind while framing his assessment

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

bogus and added to total income of the assesses treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys

M/S RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER .OF. INCOME. TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

bogus and added to total income of the assesses treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

bogus and added to total income of the assesses treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

bogus and added to total income of the assesses treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The transaction was made through the share of M/s Kappac Pharma I.T.A. Nos.32 to 35/Asr/2019 16 A.Ys