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

131 of the IT Act .on account of inability of the appellant to produce him for substantiating the claim of purchases made from that party. Shri Madan Lal Pahuja failed to attend the proceedings on account of his medical condition. The appellant has also failed to produce him even in the course of remand proceedings to substantiate its claim

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance. In fact, we observe no basis for contradicting the said finding by the AO, who makes this abundantly clear per the show cause notice dated 12/2/2013. There is, thus, no reason or basis with the ld. CIT(A) to hold that the assessee had in fact produced the books of account before the AO, as he does at page

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

d education claimed u/s 54D along with documents. Please explain as to why the deduction claimed u/s 54D may not be disallowed and added to your income. Please furnish your reply with evidence. Keeping in view the above facts, your case is fixed for hearing on 18.11.2016 and you are requested to attend my office with your complete reply failing

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

D. R. Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 2 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex Pvt Ltd. v. ITO & Ors ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 03/09/2024 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which

SH. BASANT KUMAR,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

d) United Motors 21,880/- 18.03.2018 Nature of expenditure not specified 3 ITA No. 514 (Asr)/2017 (AY 2014-15) Basant Kumar v. Dy. CIT Before us, it was contended by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee’s counsel, that the assessee’s lorry had met a road accident and the payments to M/s. Dada Motors and Malkiat Singh

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowing the excessive agriculture income claimed by the assessee in the absence of any evidence for the sale of agricultural produce.’ 3. The first ground is in respect of an addition for Rs.10 lacs made u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee, an agriculturist and colonizer, was during the relevant year engaged in development of a colony by the name

SMT. AVTAR KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 216/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 145(3), we, for the reasons afore-stated, as well as that may find elaboration in the subsequent part of this order, see no infirmity therein qua the assessee’s trading 7 Avtar Kaur v. Asst. CIT results, which only stand disturbed by the Revenue. Rather, we observe, apart from absence of stock reconciliation/details, also un-reconciled balances with

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD.,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

d) that the lamination did not affect the cost of bookssignificantly. (e) that in the absence of quantitative records, that lowexpenses indicated low expenses indicated lowproduction and inflation of sale price. (f) that merely because the assessee had claimed to haveemployed a large number of workers and had incurredlarge expenses on electricity, freight and fuel/oil did not imply that

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

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

d) that the lamination did not affect the cost of bookssignificantly. (e) that in the absence of quantitative records, that lowexpenses indicated low expenses indicated lowproduction and inflation of sale price. (f) that merely because the assessee had claimed to haveemployed a large number of workers and had incurredlarge expenses on electricity, freight and fuel/oil did not imply that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

d) that the lamination did not affect the cost of bookssignificantly. (e) that in the absence of quantitative records, that lowexpenses indicated low expenses indicated lowproduction and inflation of sale price. (f) that merely because the assessee had claimed to haveemployed a large number of workers and had incurredlarge expenses on electricity, freight and fuel/oil did not imply that

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

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

d) that the lamination did not affect the cost of bookssignificantly. (e) that in the absence of quantitative records, that lowexpenses indicated low expenses indicated lowproduction and inflation of sale price. (f) that merely because the assessee had claimed to haveemployed a large number of workers and had incurredlarge expenses on electricity, freight and fuel/oil did not imply that

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

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

d) that the lamination did not affect the cost of bookssignificantly. (e) that in the absence of quantitative records, that lowexpenses indicated low expenses indicated lowproduction and inflation of sale price. (f) that merely because the assessee had claimed to haveemployed a large number of workers and had incurredlarge expenses on electricity, freight and fuel/oil did not imply that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

d) that the lamination did not affect the cost of bookssignificantly. (e) that in the absence of quantitative records, that lowexpenses indicated low expenses indicated lowproduction and inflation of sale price. (f) that merely because the assessee had claimed to haveemployed a large number of workers and had incurredlarge expenses on electricity, freight and fuel/oil did not imply that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

d) that the lamination did not affect the cost of bookssignificantly. (e) that in the absence of quantitative records, that lowexpenses indicated low expenses indicated lowproduction and inflation of sale price. (f) that merely because the assessee had claimed to haveemployed a large number of workers and had incurredlarge expenses on electricity, freight and fuel/oil did not imply that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

d) that the lamination did not affect the cost of bookssignificantly. (e) that in the absence of quantitative records, that lowexpenses indicated low expenses indicated lowproduction and inflation of sale price. (f) that merely because the assessee had claimed to haveemployed a large number of workers and had incurredlarge expenses on electricity, freight and fuel/oil did not imply that

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.

d) We would like to specifically bring to Your Honor's notice that the opinion regarding excessiveness or unreasonableness of the expense has ITA No. 354/Asr./2014 10 Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. been formed by the Ld. AO only on the oasis of quantum of amount which reflects nothing but only an individual perception and there is no comparative data

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.

d) We would like to specifically bring to Your Honor's notice that the opinion regarding excessiveness or unreasonableness of the expense has ITA No. 354/Asr./2014 10 Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. been formed by the Ld. AO only on the oasis of quantum of amount which reflects nothing but only an individual perception and there is no comparative data

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed 70% of the value of the land received as taxable income and will not come under the exemption under provisions of 10(37) of the Act. Accordingly, value of land amount to Rs.5,12,87,411/- is added back with the total income of the assessee for the amount received from sale non-agricultural land under LTCG