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

disallowance u/s 69C, the said section is not applicable in the case of the assessee as the source of site

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. SH. MOHAN LAL, BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 170/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pan: Aajpl8560B Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Prop. Ward-1(2), Bathinda. M/S Ramji Dass Bko, Vill. Bhagiwander, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 69C and calculation of profit on sale of such unaccounted bricks was based on presumption which, needless to say, cannot be upheld. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete both the aforesaid additions. 11. Apropos the ground of appeal as at serial (b) above, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer has made a disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 69C: SLP dismissed. 10 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex Pvt Ltd. v. ITO & Ors (iii) Judgement iin the case of PCIT vs. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia as reported in ( [2022] 145 taxmann.com 546 (Bombay) INCOME TAX: Where Assessing Officer made addition by disallowing

SH. BALDEV SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No.658/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

Section 69C of the Act. 13. Facts related to this issue in brief are that the AO made the impugned addition by observing that a salary of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to Sh. Sukhjit Singh which was not entered into books of account and the assessee was confronted as to why the said amount may not be treated

SH. BALDEV SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No.658/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

Section 69C of the Act. 13. Facts related to this issue in brief are that the AO made the impugned addition by observing that a salary of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to Sh. Sukhjit Singh which was not entered into books of account and the assessee was confronted as to why the said amount may not be treated

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

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

69C is attracted in this case because there has been unexplained expenditure by way of bogus purchase and the section bars the allowability of unexplained expenditure. 21. On the same issue he further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of PCIT vs Drisha Impex Pvt Ltd dated 7th April

SHRI ARSHAD MOHD MALIK,JAMMU vs. INMCVOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (4), UDHAMPUR

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

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80C amount of Rs.62,500/- and the addition u/s 69C amount of Rs.1,90,330/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). But the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. The assessee has argument that the assessee is a partner of M/s Malik Construction and the turnover amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs. MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS ,, BATHINDA

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

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

Section 69C of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) -Assessing Officer had disallowed some expenditure treating purchases

MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA

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

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

Section 69C of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) -Assessing Officer had disallowed some expenditure treating purchases

SH. JOGESH CHANDER GUPTA,PHAGWARA vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 13/Asr/2015 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sh Jogesh Chander Gupta, बनाम The Addl. Cit, Prop.Sampoorna Feeds, Phagwara Range, G.T. Road, Phagwara Opp.Mauli Gate, Phagwara 144632 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Aappg4599K अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Vijh, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Davinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :10.03.2025 2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2014 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar For A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Only Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:

section 69C places onus on the revenue which cannot be discharged merely on the basis of presumption. Copy of the decision enclosed at page no. 45 to 49 [please see page no. 46]. Also it has been held by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Anil Kumar, Anup Kumar & Soma Devi vs. ACIT reported

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

disallowance u/s 69C was never taken by the AO in the assessment proceedings and draft assessment order and it was altogether a new issue. I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 39 Assessment Year: 2018-19 12.3. The ld AR argued that the ld. AO should not take any decision under surmises and conjectures. Mr. Sehgal, ld. AR relied on the orders which are reproduced

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

disallowed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure and has prayed for sustaining the order of the Ld. first appellate authority. 19 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 35. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record. We are of the opinion that the decisions relied upon by the Ld DR are distinguishable on facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JALANADHAR vs. M/S KAPIL BATRA FILM PRODUCTION HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.59/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was based on the specific report of the Special Auditor. 4. Whether Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in reducing the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) at Rs.82,26,000/- to Rs.2,02,899/- when the same was required to be confirmed

M/S NARULA FOODS 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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

M/S NARULA FOODS 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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD 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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue

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

section 153A would not be applicable for the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee has taken the grievance that the approval passed by the revenue in a mechanical manner u/s 153D withoutproper application of mind. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand the revenue