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

bogus purchase and sale transactions ignoring the Fund Flow Statement as well as various case laws that in a situation like this only the extra margin of profit earned, if any, could be added. 5. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,98,47,645 made

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

section is very wide, but at the same time it cannot be stated to be a plenary power. The AO can assume jurisdiction under the said provision provided there is sufficient material before him. He cannot act on the basis of his whim and fancy, and the existence of material must be real. Further, there must be nexus between

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

section is very wide, but at the same time it cannot be stated to be a plenary power. The AO can assume jurisdiction under the said provision provided there is sufficient material before him. He cannot act on the basis of his whim and fancy, and the existence of material must be real. Further, there must be nexus between

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

section 69 of the Act. In these facts and in the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has correctly made the addition of Rs. 10,25,395.03 which represents opening balance in the case of bogus sundry creditors. Therefore, addition of Rs. 10,25,395/- represented by opening balance in the case

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

section 69 of the Act. In these facts and in the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has correctly made the addition of Rs. 10,25,395.03 which represents opening balance in the case of bogus sundry creditors. Therefore, addition of Rs. 10,25,395/- represented by opening balance in the case

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

section 69 of the Act. In these facts and in the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has correctly made the addition of Rs. 10,25,395.03 which represents opening balance in the case of bogus sundry creditors. Therefore, addition of Rs. 10,25,395/- represented by opening balance in the case

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

47 ITR (T) 33 (Amritsar-Trib.) [25.02.2016]: I.T.A. No. 223/Asr/2019 8 “IT: Where Assessing Officer completed assessment in case of assessee under section 143(3), in absence of any failure on part of assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment reassessment proceedings could not be initiated after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year merely

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

purchase ESCERTsfor the trading of I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 47 Assessment Year: 2018-19 ESCERTs, Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) is the Market Regulator and Bureau of Energy Efficiency is the Administrator. 15.5. Common Features: For treating them as capital receipts not liable to tax a) That all the above stated three modes of incentives are in the nature of an entitlement

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

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

47 P&H, Tilak Raj Bedi Vs. JCIT 319 ITR 385 P&H, Pb. State Cooperative Agriculture Dev Bank Vs. CIT 207 CTR 352 P&H, Grover Nursing Home 248 ITR 493 P&H, Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. Vs. ACIT 281 ITR 394 Del the principle is laid down that the Assessing Officer is expected to possess information which should

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

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus sundry creditors without rejecting the books of accounts and without invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. As such the addition made is bad and is illegal in the eyes of law and the same may be deleted.’ 4. Before us, the thrust of the assessee’s case was that no fresh notices were

SH. YASH PAUL KHANNA PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

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

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

section quoted by the AO is 143(3) dated 03.02.2006, we find from records that in this case the original assessment was framed on 23.02.2024, u/s 143(3) on a total income of Rs.1,35,690/- (as against return income of Rs.1,06,150/- ), which has been subsequently set aside by the ld. CIT, Jalandhar-II, by invoking his jurisdiction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH. M/S NOVELTY SWEETS, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

bogus losses to be set off with the amount of surrendered income when it is a clear cut fact that accounts of the assessee were not maintained properly? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not appreciating that the assessee had incurred losses in the relevant year only

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. 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

purchase of vehicles and homes etc. and the periods of such financing not less than one yearupto five years. He noticed that on such transaction during the selling expenses, stamping fees and commission paid to selling agents, could not be treated as expenditure related to the year in which, the transaction took place as the period of financing was more

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

purchase of vehicles and homes etc. and the periods of such financing not less than one yearupto five years. He noticed that on such transaction during the selling expenses, stamping fees and commission paid to selling agents, could not be treated as expenditure related to the year in which, the transaction took place as the period of financing was more

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

purchase of vehicles and homes etc. and the periods of such financing not less than one yearupto five years. He noticed that on such transaction during the selling expenses, stamping fees and commission paid to selling agents, could not be treated as expenditure related to the year in which, the transaction took place as the period of financing was more

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

purchase of vehicles and homes etc. and the periods of such financing not less than one yearupto five years. He noticed that on such transaction during the selling expenses, stamping fees and commission paid to selling agents, could not be treated as expenditure related to the year in which, the transaction took place as the period of financing was more