M/S GOODWIL TRADERS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 145(3) of the Act and applying 1.50% of gross profit rate on gross receipts which is bad in law, arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. A.O has erred in law & on facts of the case by applying a higher rate and the sae is treated as Income

GOODWILL TRADERS.,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 145(3) of the Act and applying 1.50% of gross profit rate on gross receipts which is bad in law, arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. A.O has erred in law & on facts of the case by applying a higher rate and the sae is treated as Income

GOODWILL TRADERS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 145(3) of the Act and applying 1.50% of gross profit rate on gross receipts which is bad in law, arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. A.O has erred in law & on facts of the case by applying a higher rate and the sae is treated as Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. M/S SURJIT SINGH AND CO, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

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

145(3), the disallowances u/s 40A(3) becomes redundant. As regards the disallowance u/s 69C, the said section is not applicable

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

145(3) of the Act, the AO has estimated the income of te assessee as above. It is settled law that once books are rejected and income assessed by the AO on estimate basis, the provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. 18. Without prejudice to above, the assessee has claimed wage expenses and the said liability

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

145(3) of the Act, the AO has estimated the income of te assessee as above. It is settled law that once books are rejected and income assessed by the AO on estimate basis, the provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. 18. Without prejudice to above, the assessee has claimed wage expenses and the said liability

SH. NITIN MAHAJAN,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance under various head of expenses without invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act and rejecting

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit\n(Rule 6DD) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of\nmanufacturing of dairy products Assessee filed return and Assessing Officer passed\nassessment order after making certain additions - Principal Commissioner observed that\nassessee made cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000 to milk sellers who were traders and\nsaid sellers

RAJ KUMAR & CO,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 145(3) of the Act 61, and gross profit has been estimated at fair percentage on sales, it is not open to the AO to rely upon the same rejected books of accounts, to make additions and or disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. M/S THE CITIZEN URBAN CO- OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

section 145 of the income tax at 1961. The CIT(DR) further submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 32,04,736/- made by Assessing Officer on account of disallowance

SHRIMATI SHAMSHADA TALIB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD -3(3), SRINAGAR

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

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

145 (3) of Income Tax Act; 1961. The addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and factsbyconfirming action of the Ld. Assessing Officer by passing order u/s 144 read with section 147 of Income Tax Act 1961, which is bad in law and against thefactsand circumstancesof thecase

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

disallowance U/s 40A(3) amount to Rs. 8,38,000/-.Being aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved revenue filed an appeal before us. Ground No.1 4. In the ground no. 1 of the revenue, the DR vehemently argued and contended that

SH. SATISH JAIN,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

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

145 whereby provisions of that section are made applicable to block assessments is made clarificatory and would take effect retrospectively from 1st day of July, 1995. When it comes to amendment to Section 113 of the Act, this very circular provides that the said amendment along with amendments in Section 158BE, would be prospective i.e. it will take effect from

SANT VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

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

145 whereby provisions of that section are made applicable to block assessments is made clarificatory and would take effect retrospectively from 1st day of July, 1995. When it comes to amendment to Section 113 of the Act, this very circular provides that the said amendment along with amendments in Section 158BE, would be prospective i.e. it will take effect from

TRG INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

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

145 whereby provisions of that section are made applicable to block assessments is made clarificatory and would take effect retrospectively from 1st day of July, 1995. When it comes to amendment to Section 113 of the Act, this very circular provides that the said amendment along with amendments in Section 158BE, would be prospective i.e. it will take effect from

AMRITSAR SWADESHI TEXTILE CORPORATION,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, ITA Nos. 158/Asr/2022, 168/Asr/2022, 170/Asr/2022 and 175/Asr/2022 of the assessees are allowed

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

145 whereby provisions of that section are made applicable to block assessments is made clarificatory and would take effect retrospectively from 1st day of July, 1995. When it comes to amendment to Section 113 of the Act, this very circular provides that the said amendment along with amendments in Section 158BE, would be prospective i.e. it will take effect from

M/S MOVIE BOX RECORDS P. LTD ,JALNDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALNDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 263/Asr/2017 is

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

disallowance was not warranted on a mere guess work. 4. That the orders of the authorities below, to the extent disputed herein, are against law and facts of the case.” Ground ITA No. 254/Asr/2017 “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the rejection of books of account under section

M/S MOVIE BOX RECORDS P. LTD ,JALNDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALNDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 263/Asr/2017 is

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

disallowance was not warranted on a mere guess work. 4. That the orders of the authorities below, to the extent disputed herein, are against law and facts of the case.” Ground ITA No. 254/Asr/2017 “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the rejection of books of account under section