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

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

bogus purchases: Rs. 2,38,60,205/- (ii). addition towards unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 51,34,260/-; and (iii). addition/disallowance of cash

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

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

bogus purchases: Rs. 2,38,60,205/- (ii). addition towards unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 51,34,260/-; and (iii). addition/disallowance of cash

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Unexplained investments (Undisclosed cash purchases) - Assessing Officer made addition on account of undisclosed cash purchases and bogus sundry creditors - However, details of ledger account and copies of bill clearly indicated that purchases were made from these parties and payments were made through bank - All payments were made by account payee cheque which were duly debited in assessee's bank account

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

cash. It is apparent from the facts that the above-mentioned modus operandi was used. PAR The addition is made by the AO based on the admission of Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta that the aforesaid sales and purchases to the Appellant are bogus in nature it is pertinent to 7 I.T.A. No. 9/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 note that

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

credit rating, banker certificate of beneficiary account of seller along with the tabulation of utilization of each & every payments given to the seller party. It was contended that the examination of all the invoices, shall reveals that on the reverse of the invoice that stock are checked by the staff who put his signature also and shortage, if any, noted

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

credit rating, banker certificate of beneficiary account of seller along with the tabulation of utilization of each & every payments given to the seller party. It was contended that the examination of all the invoices, shall reveals that on the reverse of the invoice that stock are checked by the staff who put his signature also and shortage, if any, noted

HIMALYA SPINNING MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus sales cannot be approved. 8. There is no bar in making cash sales by the manufacturer. The AO has also admitted that there was cash sale of Rs. 560204/- in Financial Year 2015-16. Thus, the AO wrongly held that no goods in cash was sold during the earlier Financial Year 2015-16. The AO failed to appreciate that

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs. MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS ,, BATHINDA

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

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

bogus as the assessee failed to prove genuineness of sales in respect of such alleged purchases. (v) The CIT(A) erred in observing that taking out of purchases from trading account would show abnormal GP without appreciating that onus was upon the assessee to disclose source of purchases in respect of sales made during the year

MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA

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

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

bogus as the assessee failed to prove genuineness of sales in respect of such alleged purchases. (v) The CIT(A) erred in observing that taking out of purchases from trading account would show abnormal GP without appreciating that onus was upon the assessee to disclose source of purchases in respect of sales made during the year

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

purchase vouchers or expenditure vouchers for any year were found maintained at the business premises of the assessee. No explanation about the non-maintenance of books of account at the business premises of the assessee was furnished by the assessee. However, cash book and ledger accounts for the period 2013-14 were found maintained on computer of the assessee

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

unexplained, the AO can assess it as 10 Kiran Mahajan v. ITO his income and no further burden lies on him to show the source of the said credit. It was for the assessee to show that the source of the said cash credit, where so claimed, was his business income, for which – assessed separately, he may, in the facts

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

bogus and added it to total income - Commissioner (Appeals) examined all relevant documents provided by assessee, including bills of purchases, broker account copies, bills for 26 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 sales, and bank statements and held that 10 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama Mittal v. ITO purchases were made through a recognized broker via cheque

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

bogus and added it to total income - Commissioner (Appeals) examined all relevant documents provided by assessee, including bills of purchases, broker account copies, bills for 26 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 sales, and bank statements and held that 10 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama Mittal v. ITO purchases were made through a recognized broker via cheque

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

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

credit (Share Application money) - assessment year 2001-02 - Where assessee had furnished large amount of materials in form of documents to evidence genuineness of identity and transactions as well as creditworthiness of share applicants and other creditors and Assessing Officer did not conduct appropriate enquiry to conclude that share infusion and advances received were mom bogus entities, no addition could

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

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

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

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