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

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

bogus purchases. The AO did not appreciate that these were genuine purchases and all the purchases were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and their sales were duly accepted in toto. As such, the A.O has blown hot & cold in the same breath/. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu

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

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

bogus purchases. The AO did not appreciate that these were genuine purchases and all the purchases were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and their sales were duly accepted in toto. As such, the A.O has blown hot & cold in the same breath/. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu

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

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

bogus purchases. The AO did not appreciate that these were genuine purchases and all the purchases were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and their sales were duly accepted in toto. As such, the A.O has blown hot & cold in the same breath/. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu

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

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

bogus purchases. The AO did not appreciate that these were genuine purchases and all the purchases were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and their sales were duly accepted in toto. As such, the A.O has blown hot & cold in the same breath/. Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu

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 143(3) on being questioned about the purchases made from the said concern, in his detailed replies along with documentary evidences filed with the Assessing officer provided all the copies of Purchase Invoices, Confirmation of Truck numbers from Vahan, Reverse Side of purchase invoices duly mentioning the weight confirmation, Stacking details, Shortages if any, Cash discounts deducted and even

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 143(3) on being questioned about the purchases made from the said concern, in his detailed replies along with documentary evidences filed with the Assessing officer provided all the copies of Purchase Invoices, Confirmation of Truck numbers from Vahan, Reverse Side of purchase invoices duly mentioning the weight confirmation, Stacking details, Shortages if any, Cash discounts deducted and even

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

3. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,98,47,645 made by the AO by treating the certain items of purchase and sale as bogus completely ignoring all the evidences provided to prove the genuineness of purchase and sale. 4. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred

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

3. That by holding that the ITO failed to obtain the mis-match list from the ETO, at the time of reassessment, to ascertain the parties from whom bogus purchases were made, the Id. Pr.CIT, in a way, has held the order u/s.148 itself as bad in law, thus leaving no scope to further revise the same under section

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

section 132. 5. That on the facts & circumstances of the case addition of total amount of alleged purchases is illegal as department on similar facts has made additions of only 5% profit element embedded in such purchases.” 3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of running a Solvent Extraction Plant, Cotton factory

SH. VIKRAM JAIN,AMRITSAR. vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes on the terms afore-stated

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 336/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 145(3), which we shall, therefore, examine next. 3.2 Toward this, we, on the conspectus of the case, do not find the assessee to have established the genuineness of his purchase and sale transactions during the year. Our reasons for the same are as under: a). the assessee before the custom authorities submitted that his books of account were

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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