BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

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

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

MEASEG G.H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

MEASAGE G.H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

MEASAGE G. H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

MEASAGE G. H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

MEASAGE G.H AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also