DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH. M/S NOVELTY SWEETS, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

disallow such business loss with the surrendered income and the new section is applicable from assessment year 2022-23 onward and not for the year under consideration and accordingly, for assessment year 2019-20 under consideration, the business loss could be set off against the surrendered income. The AR finally contended that the provision of Section 145(3

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

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

3. Additional grounds of appeal:- “1. That the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Amritsar has grossly erred in making Adhoc disallowance under various head of expenses without invoking the provisions of section 145

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

3), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 6DD of\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962 - Business 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

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

3,00,000 in that accounting year. This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability. It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year. But the liability is a continuing liability which stretches over a period of 12 years. It is, therefore, a liability spread over a period

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

3,00,000 in that accounting year. This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability. It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year. But the liability is a continuing liability which stretches over a period of 12 years. It is, therefore, a liability spread over a period

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

3,00,000 in that accounting year. This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability. It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year. But the liability is a continuing liability which stretches over a period of 12 years. It is, therefore, a liability spread over a period

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

3,00,000 in that accounting year. This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability. It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year. But the liability is a continuing liability which stretches over a period of 12 years. It is, therefore, a liability spread over a period

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

3,00,000 in that accounting year. This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability. It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year. But the liability is a continuing liability which stretches over a period of 12 years. It is, therefore, a liability spread over a period

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

3,00,000 in that accounting year. This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability. It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year. But the liability is a continuing liability which stretches over a period of 12 years. It is, therefore, a liability spread over a period

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

3,00,000 in that accounting year. This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability. It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year. But the liability is a continuing liability which stretches over a period of 12 years. It is, therefore, a liability spread over a period

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

3,00,000 in that accounting year. This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability. It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year. But the liability is a continuing liability which stretches over a period of 12 years. It is, therefore, a liability spread over a period