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

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

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

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

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

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

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

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

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

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

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

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

70,197/- on account of receipt under DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section

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

disallowance. ii. Paramount Impex v. AC IT, Circle-J, Ludhiana [2020] 117 taxmann.com 802 (Chandigarh Trib.) Section 145 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Rejection of Account (Non-maintenance of stock register) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Whether where assessee was dealing in a large number of small items and it was consistently following method of determining stock

SHRI GAGANDEEP GARG. PROP,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of loss arising therefrom against the non speculative business income; that he has not controverted/negated any of the contention of the assessee as per detailed reply submitted in response to show cause notice u/s 263. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. PCIT has erred in law and facts of the case by passing an order based on whims

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED, TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

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

disallowed. Under the facts & circumstances of the case and after looking the bill filed by the AR and enquiries done in the presence of AR during the appellate proceedings, the addition of Rs. 18,15,000/- made by the AO is found sustainable and hence confirmed. Bogus accommodation entry with the help of Sh. Raman Arora Regarding M/s. Dashmesh Agro

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED , TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

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

disallowed. Under the facts & circumstances of the case and after looking the bill filed by the AR and enquiries done in the presence of AR during the appellate proceedings, the addition of Rs. 18,15,000/- made by the AO is found sustainable and hence confirmed. Bogus accommodation entry with the help of Sh. Raman Arora Regarding M/s. Dashmesh Agro

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

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

70,63,030/- has beat accepted by the AO as genuine, so question of addition of the sum of Rs.78,22,863/- which represented the liability to pay the truck owners by assessee cannot be added u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and we agree that section

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

70,63,030/- has beat accepted by the AO as genuine, so question of addition of the sum of Rs.78,22,863/- which represented the liability to pay the truck owners by assessee cannot be added u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and we agree that section

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

3,14,00,000/- and upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 2,39,00,000/-. It is therefore requested that considering the facts of the case addition made by the Ld. A.O upheld by the worthy CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 5.1 The ld. AR argued that the approval U/s 153D was executed in mechanical manner. In evidence

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

3,14,00,000/- and upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 2,39,00,000/-. It is therefore requested that considering the facts of the case addition made by the Ld. A.O upheld by the worthy CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 5.1 The ld. AR argued that the approval U/s 153D was executed in mechanical manner. In evidence

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

3,14,00,000/- and upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 2,39,00,000/-. It is therefore requested that considering the facts of the case addition made by the Ld. A.O upheld by the worthy CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 5.1 The ld. AR argued that the approval U/s 153D was executed in mechanical manner. In evidence

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

3,14,00,000/- and upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 2,39,00,000/-. It is therefore requested that considering the facts of the case addition made by the Ld. A.O upheld by the worthy CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 5.1 The ld. AR argued that the approval U/s 153D was executed in mechanical manner. In evidence

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

3,14,00,000/- and upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 2,39,00,000/-. It is therefore requested that considering the facts of the case addition made by the Ld. A.O upheld by the worthy CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 5.1 The ld. AR argued that the approval U/s 153D was executed in mechanical manner. In evidence