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

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 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 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 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 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 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

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) being subsequent in time, it may well be that the assessee had, in terms of the provision as it stood for the relevant years, claimed and been allowed deduction for the year/s when the TDS stands deposited to the credit of the Central Government. The onus to satisfy the AO in this regard, i.e., that there