SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

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

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

section 133(6), had been properly explained by assessee - Assessing Officer's contention that other party had booked expenses could not be reason to make additions since contract receipt was reflected in subsequent year in terms of assessee's regular method of I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 23 Assessment Year: 2017-18 accounting - An addition based on amount in Form 26AS and that

SH. ANUP KUMAR JAITLY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

133 A of the IT Act. However, it was pointed out by the AO that no such amount has been covered in the offer of additional income made after the survey. Thereafter, it was submitted by the appellant that it is a normal trade practice to purchase gold & silver in cash. It is also submitted that it was a first

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

disallowed vide para -5 as above, this amount of Rs. 4,91,16,530/- on account excise duty refund is not considered separately for computation of deduction eligible to the assessee u/s 80IB of I. T. Act, as not derived from the Industrial Undertaking. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has claimed wrong

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

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

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

disallowed vide para -5 as above, this amount of Rs. 4,91,16,530/- on account excise duty refund is not considered separately for computation of deduction eligible to the assessee u/s 80IB of I. T. Act, as not derived from the Industrial Undertaking. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has claimed wrong

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

disallowed vide para -5 as above, this amount of Rs. 4,91,16,530/- on account excise duty refund is not considered separately for computation of deduction eligible to the assessee u/s 80IB of I. T. Act, as not derived from the Industrial Undertaking. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has claimed wrong

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

disallowed vide para -5 as above, this amount of Rs. 4,91,16,530/- on account excise duty refund is not considered separately for computation of deduction eligible to the assessee u/s 80IB of I. T. Act, as not derived from the Industrial Undertaking. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has claimed wrong

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

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

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

disallowed vide para -5 as above, this amount of Rs. 4,91,16,530/- on account excise duty refund is not considered separately for computation of deduction eligible to the assessee u/s 80IB of I. T. Act, as not derived from the Industrial Undertaking. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has claimed wrong

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

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

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

disallowed vide para -5 as above, this amount of Rs. 4,91,16,530/- on account excise duty refund is not considered separately for computation of deduction eligible to the assessee u/s 80IB of I. T. Act, as not derived from the Industrial Undertaking. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has claimed wrong

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

disallowed vide para -5 as above, this amount of Rs. 4,91,16,530/- on account excise duty refund is not considered separately for computation of deduction eligible to the assessee u/s 80IB of I. T. Act, as not derived from the Industrial Undertaking. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has claimed wrong

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

disallowed vide para -5 as above, this amount of Rs. 4,91,16,530/- on account excise duty refund is not considered separately for computation of deduction eligible to the assessee u/s 80IB of I. T. Act, as not derived from the Industrial Undertaking. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has claimed wrong

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

disallowed vide para -5 as above, this amount of Rs. 4,91,16,530/- on account excise duty refund is not considered separately for computation of deduction eligible to the assessee u/s 80IB of I. T. Act, as not derived from the Industrial Undertaking. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has claimed wrong

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

disallowed vide para -5 as above, this amount of Rs. 4,91,16,530/- on account excise duty refund is not considered separately for computation of deduction eligible to the assessee u/s 80IB of I. T. Act, as not derived from the Industrial Undertaking. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has claimed wrong

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

133 (6) of the Act that the assessee has made payments in cash in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act by issuing bearer cheques. The appellant, on the other hand, has given detailed explanations against each party and admitted to have issued bearer cheques in some cases due to business expediency but claimed to have been duly reflected

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 , KAPURTHALA

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

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

section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 calling names and addresses of the firms from whom bogus purchases were made by the assessee. In response to this letter the Excise Department vide their No. 2125 dated11.12.2017 furnished list of 43 firms from which the assessee firm purchased husk amounting to Rs.3,70,99,200/-. To verify these purchases letters

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and no expenditure as well other deductions were admissible on this declared income. However, the Assessing Officer, while framing assessment failed to disallow the expenses claimed and to make any enquiries/verifications in the matter.” 14. That the Assessee after receipt of the show cause notice, had given various replies including the reply

NATH RAM (HUF) ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 43B of the Act. Also, the ld. AO disallowed all expenses of Rs.1 lac ad hoc on estimated basis. For the reasons behind the ad hoc disallowance is that in machinery labour charged amount to Rs.7,84,490/- the assessee had not maintained any master role and the vouchers were improper and the complete name and address

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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed