M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

171, 216). It is again noteworthy that section 271(1B) stood inserted on the statute-book by Finance Act, 2008, i.e., prior to the afore-referred decisions by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. In other words, section 271(1B) - which relates only to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), does not, as explained, operate

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

disallowed the claim of brought forward loss to be set-off against the current business income of Rs.34,48,171/-, and determined the assessed income at Rs.34.63 lakhs u/s 143(1) ignoring the provisions of section

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowed the entire purchases amounting to ₹ 42693470/- holding as unverifiable purchases from the following parties: - Sr. NoName of the Concern Amount of Purchases 1. Madan lalPahuja M/S Shiv bholeKirpa Traders 1.05 Cr Shivpuri, Ludhiana 2. Lovy Steel and Allied Industries, Sector 3-C 0.17 Cr Gobindgarh 3. Jatinder kumar Shree Nath Ispatudhyog, gobindgarh2.06 Cr 4. Shree Radhey Steel & Alloys

M/S. AMAN TRADING CORP.,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 255/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 1997-98

section 68; the onus to prove the genuineness of the cash credits being on the assessee (PB pgs. 80-84). The matter was taken up again for assessment vide issue of notices u/ss. 143(2)/142(1) on 07.06.2001 and, further, the assessee required to produce five (5) creditors vide order-sheet entry dated 20.06.2001. However, despite several notices being

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

171 (Chennai - Trib.) “15. This leaves us with the issue regarding addition of Rs. 15,51,913. Undisputedly, the only strife between the parties is that per assessee it is liable to be taxed in the assessment year 2010-11 which is opposed by the Revenue who states that since it is a case of mercantile system of accounting

SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.300/Asr/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Mandeep Singh Dhillon Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax #16310, Street No. 13/5 Dhillon Bathinda (Punjab). Colony, Barnala Bye Pass, Bathinda.

disallowance of interest has been made.” Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Mandeep Singh Dhillon 13. We note that items and document required for limited scrutiny have been submitted by the assessee which is reproduced below: “With reference to above said case, I submit as under: 1. That the Books of Accounts are produced before your kind perusal. 2. (a) That