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

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

271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order has been assailed before

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

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

271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order has been assailed before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) -1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of I.T.A. Nos.23 to 28/Asr/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 inaccurate particulars by the assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under section 271

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

bogus sub contracts. 4. In regards to the above points, it is respectfully submitted as under: 4.1 It was requested then also that the agreement (letter of intent copy) currently is not available with the assessee company. At that time also, request was placed with DRA to provide copy of LOI covering the required information of margins and terms

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

bogus sub contracts. 4. In regards to the above points, it is respectfully submitted as under: 4.1 It was requested then also that the agreement (letter of intent copy) currently is not available with the assessee company. At that time also, request was placed with DRA to provide copy of LOI covering the required information of margins and terms

SH. MANGAT TREHAN ,HOSHIARPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 223/Asr/2019 is 10

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

271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were also initiated. 3. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order and (he Ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed in appeal No. 447/09-10/CIT(A)/Jal, allowed I.T.A. No. 223/Asr/2019 6 relief of Rs.26,19.862'- to the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs. 27,28,351/- made

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR vs. SMT. BANEET KAUR BHASIN,, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. When the appeals are called for a hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record we find that the date was fixed several times but none was present to represent the appeal. Considering the issue, we proceed

SHRIMATI BANEET KAUR BHASIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. When the appeals are called for a hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record we find that the date was fixed several times but none was present to represent the appeal. Considering the issue, we proceed

SMT. BANEET KAUR BHASIN,,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. When the appeals are called for a hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record we find that the date was fixed several times but none was present to represent the appeal. Considering the issue, we proceed

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

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

271, on the question of recording satisfaction by the cpmpetent authority u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act has held that- “………………………the case before us is entirely different. We have found that the reasons recorded by the AO justify the initiation of proceedings under Sections 147 and 148. As the Principal Commissioner agreed with these reasons, it was not necessary

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS