POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

40A(3), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 6DD of\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit\n(Rule 6DD) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of\nmanufacturing of dairy products Assessee filed return and Assessing Officer passed\nassessment order after making certain additions - Principal Commissioner

DUPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. SH. VINOD ARORA, , BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

gains of business or profession under sub-section (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of the payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees in the cases and circumstances specified hereunder, namely :- (a). ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. (b) where the payment

SH. GURJEET SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 597/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

capital.’ 3. The assessee’s case before me is that ‘the availability of cash’ with him (the assessee) for making the payment/s, evidenced by cash receipts (not forming part of the record, though, to be fair, on being asked to during hearing, were produced by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Bansal), is not in doubt. Where

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. The computation under Section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the asses

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. The computation under Section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the asses

M/S. MANGAT RICE & GENERAL MILLS,,SHAHKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the terms aforesaid

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.474/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mangat Rice & General Vs. Ito, Nakodar. Mills, Shahkot. Pan: Aabfm 5282B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Gaurav Dhall, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 23.05.2017, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08 Vide Order Dated 14.12.2009. 2. The Principal Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Maintainability In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of An Addition For Rs.4.39 Lacs Sustained By The First Appellate Authority. The Background Facts Are That The Assessee, A Partnership Firm In The Business Of Rice Milling, Filed Its’ Return Of Income For The Year On 18.03.2008 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. It’S Trade Debtors & Trade Creditors, Reflected At Rs.9.42 Lacs & Rs.32.18 Lacs Respectively As At The Year-End, I.E., 31.03.2007, Per Its Final Accounts, Were Sought To Be Verified By The 2 Mangat Rice & General Mills V. Ito Assessing Officer (Ao) By Calling Information There-From U/S.133(6) Of The Act. The Dispute Under Reference Pertains To Two Creditors, As Under: (A) Jai Ram Jagdish Chandra, Mehatpur (Jrjc) : Rs.6,03,837.83 (B) Sohan Singh Satpal, Mehatpur (Sss) : Rs.8,38,871.58

capital, had booked their own money as cash received from the assessee. That is, the entries of cash received from the assessee in their accounts are false, and no adverse consequence on that basis should follow. On being questioned by the Bench that, assuming so, so that section 69A may not apply, how would section 41(1), also invoked