THE AZAD NAKODAR BUS SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAKODAR vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAC CIRCL-4E, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-section (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , PHAGWARA vs. SH. SUCHA SINGH, PHILLAUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed by the competent authority. 4. At Para-4, page-56 it is written that "And whereas in pursuance of section 3D(1) of the said act, the competent authority had submitted its report to the Central Govt." 5. And in the last Para at page 56 of gazette, it is mentioned that as per section

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

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

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

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

133(6) of I.Tax Act returned back in the case of M/s Numro Uno Corporation (Purchase party) and M/s B.R. Industries Ltd, M/s Dausa Transformers Udyog P Ltd, M/s Nucon Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. (Sales parties). Further, inspite of being made aware to the assessee vide show cause dated 12.02.2013, no reply has been received till date from the following Purchase

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 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

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

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