NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

148 is issued for the A.Y. 2011-12." 21. Thereafter he further relied on the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gurera Gas Cylinders P Ltd vs CIT [2002] 258 ITR 170 ( P & H ) to submit that the reasons recorded shows clearly that the AO has further investigated and has applied his mind to the information received

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

148 as well as repudiation of the claim of earlier year losses to be carried forward for adjustment against income of the assessment year under consideration are rejected. 7. The next grievance of the assesse is that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 27,500/- under section 40A(3) of the Act, against

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

148 of the Act. Hence, it is held that the notice issued and reassessment complete is valid and the Appellants ground is dismissed. Issue on merits: I have gone through the submission made by the Appellant, the Appellant is an Association of Person which has been formed with the object of setting up and I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

148 of the Act. Hence, it is held that the notice issued and reassessment complete is valid and the Appellants ground is dismissed. Issue on merits: I have gone through the submission made by the Appellant, the Appellant is an Association of Person which has been formed with the object of setting up and I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

disallowances under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, in the relevant assessment years in terms of section 150(1) read

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

disallowing Rs. 2663573/ on account of alleged violation of the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act by making payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in cash without appreciating the submissions of the assessee. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred on facts and lawwhile confirming the action of the AO of making the addition

JALALABAD SOLVEX PRIVATE LTD,JALALABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR-1, PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

148 iii 28-06- Notice under section 143(2) issued on Notice under 2021 Objections the 28/06/2021 providing the details of section 143(2) reopening reassessment of proceedings read with section assessment filed by 147 the assessee 8 I.T.A. No. 117/Asr/2024 Jalalabad Solvex Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT iv 08-12- Notice under The assessee has 2021 section

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

148, or even section 263 of the Act if requisite conditions are fulfilled. It is inconceivable, according to Sardari Lal, that in the presence of such specific provisions, a similar power is available to the I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 38 Assessment Year: 2018-19 first appellate authority. Eventually, Sardari Lal upheld the decision in Union Tyres.” The ld AR mentioned that

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

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

148 and relevant approval was received u/s 151 of the Act. During hearing before he ld. PCIT, the ld. AR submitted the following details which are enclosed in APB page 1 to 16. The relevant paragraph of assessee’s submission is extracted as below: 13. Now coming to the issues raised in the SCN as regards the alleged bogus purchases

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFD INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C of the I.T. Act and addition of Rs. 34,30,000/- on account of unexplained credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 were made in this case. The assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 being aggrieved, filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-S, Ludhiana on 22.04.2016, The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana vide

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C of the I.T. Act and addition of Rs. 34,30,000/- on account of unexplained credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 were made in this case. The assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 being aggrieved, filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-S, Ludhiana on 22.04.2016, The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana vide

SHRI ARUN NARULA ,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C of the I.T. Act and addition of Rs. 34,30,000/- on account of unexplained credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 were made in this case. The assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 being aggrieved, filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-S, Ludhiana on 22.04.2016, The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana vide

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

disallowance based only on hypothetical figures of expenses and ratio for the A.Y. 2015-16, without bringing any relevant material, independent evidence, independent verification against the same on record for AY 2012-13 and no reasons to believe arises, no record to show escapement, is a case of borrowed satisfaction and without jurisdiction, further CBDT circular on standard procedure

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

disallowance based only on hypothetical figures of expenses and ratio for the A.Y. 2015-16, without bringing any relevant material, independent evidence, independent verification against the same on record for AY 2012-13 and no reasons to believe arises, no record to show escapement, is a case of borrowed satisfaction and without jurisdiction, further CBDT circular on standard procedure

SMT. BHARTI SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

disallowance based only on hypothetical figures of expenses and ratio for the A.Y. 2015-16, without bringing any relevant material, independent evidence, independent verification against the same on record for AY 2012-13 and no reasons to believe arises, no record to show escapement, is a case of borrowed satisfaction and without jurisdiction, further CBDT circular on standard procedure

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

148 for cash deposit of Rs 3,02,06,000/- in HDFC Ltd. That the department has completed the assessment under section 147 at returned income. Furthermore, the department had accepted that the assessee was regularly depositing cash out of sales proceeds. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessment for AY 12-13 was completed by the same

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

disallowance amount to Rs.60,38,701/- u/s 14A is bad. 10. The ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) page no. 18 the relevant para is extracted as below: “It is further submitted that share application money is not capable of earning any exempt income therefore the share application money cannot be considered as investment which