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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)- Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were bogus as company ‘C’ whose shares were allegedly purchased was a penny stock, SLP filed against said order

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)- Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were bogus as company ‘C’ whose shares were allegedly purchased was a penny stock, SLP filed against said order

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

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

112/- therefore, the same were telescoped and restricted to the amount of Rs 2,08,51,002/-). viz. (i) M/s Balaji Impex : Rs. 61,54,538/- ; and (ii). M/s S.K Impex : Rs. 44,01,574/-. 3. Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of cash purchases of gold Rs. 41,62,600/- from the aforementioned parties. Disallowance of the assesses 4. Disallowance

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

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

112/- therefore, the same were telescoped and restricted to the amount of Rs 2,08,51,002/-). viz. (i) M/s Balaji Impex : Rs. 61,54,538/- ; and (ii). M/s S.K Impex : Rs. 44,01,574/-. 3. Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of cash purchases of gold Rs. 41,62,600/- from the aforementioned parties. Disallowance of the assesses 4. Disallowance

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

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

112/- therefore, the same were telescoped and restricted to the amount of Rs 2,08,51,002/-). viz. (i) M/s Balaji Impex : Rs. 61,54,538/- ; and (ii). M/s S.K Impex : Rs. 44,01,574/-. 3. Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of cash purchases of gold Rs. 41,62,600/- from the aforementioned parties. Disallowance of the assesses 4. Disallowance

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

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

112/- therefore, the same were telescoped and restricted to the amount of Rs 2,08,51,002/-). viz. (i) M/s Balaji Impex : Rs. 61,54,538/- ; and (ii). M/s S.K Impex : Rs. 44,01,574/-. 3. Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of cash purchases of gold Rs. 41,62,600/- from the aforementioned parties. Disallowance of the assesses 4. Disallowance

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

disallowance was made on account of the same having been deposited outside the time limit prescribed by the relevant Act, as the Employees Provident Fund Act, i.e., in terms of the relevant section (s. 36(1)(va)), its deletion has been directed on the basis that the relevant amounts have been deposited to the account of the concerned employee/s

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

disallowance was made on account of the same having been deposited outside the time limit prescribed by the relevant Act, as the Employees Provident Fund Act, i.e., in terms of the relevant section (s. 36(1)(va)), its deletion has been directed on the basis that the relevant amounts have been deposited to the account of the concerned employee/s

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

disallowance was made on account of the same having been deposited outside the time limit prescribed by the relevant Act, as the Employees Provident Fund Act, i.e., in terms of the relevant section (s. 36(1)(va)), its deletion has been directed on the basis that the relevant amounts have been deposited to the account of the concerned employee/s

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

disallowance was made on account of the same having been deposited outside the time limit prescribed by the relevant Act, as the Employees Provident Fund Act, i.e., in terms of the relevant section (s. 36(1)(va)), its deletion has been directed on the basis that the relevant amounts have been deposited to the account of the concerned employee/s

M/S. BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

112 TTJ 455 ( Del. ITAT) " Om Prakash Joshi Vs ITO (2009) 123 TTJ 246 (Jodhpur ITAT) ITA No. 354/Asr./2014 13 Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. " Lavrids KnudsenMaskinfabrik (India) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2006) 102 TTJ 882 (Pune ITAT) " Surface Furnishing Equipment Vs DCIT (2003) 81 TTJ 448 (Jodhpur ITAT) 10. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee

M/S BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

112 TTJ 455 ( Del. ITAT) " Om Prakash Joshi Vs ITO (2009) 123 TTJ 246 (Jodhpur ITAT) ITA No. 354/Asr./2014 13 Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. " Lavrids KnudsenMaskinfabrik (India) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2006) 102 TTJ 882 (Pune ITAT) " Surface Furnishing Equipment Vs DCIT (2003) 81 TTJ 448 (Jodhpur ITAT) 10. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

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

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

112 wherein, it was held that where there was no possibility of verifying the correctness or otherwise of the data supplied by the assessee to the merchant banker, in the absence of which the correctness of the result of DCF method could not be verified, there was no option to the AO but to reject the DCF I.T.A. No.407/Asr/2019

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD 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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee