SHRI PANKAJ ARORA,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD--3 (2), SRINAGAR

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

section 40A2(b) of the income tax Act for disallowing salary of one of the employee who was a relative of the appellant . The AO has accepted the Online Expenses and Rental expenses claimed in the P and L Account with an increase of 147 % and 300 % expenses vis-a vis previous year expenses but has disallowed the increased salary

SHRI PANKAJ ARORA ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2), SRINAGAR

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

section 40A2(b) of the income tax Act for disallowing salary of one of the employee who was a relative of the appellant . The AO has accepted the Online Expenses and Rental expenses claimed in the P and L Account with an increase of 147 % and 300 % expenses vis-a vis previous year expenses but has disallowed the increased salary

SH. BASANT KUMAR,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 37(1) (for any revenue expenditure generally), etc. The matter stands dealt with and explained at considerable length by the Tribunal per its special bench decision in ITO v. Kenaram Saha and Subhash Saha [2009] 116 ITD 1 (Kol)(SB); and more recently in Gurdas Garg v. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 456/Asr/2013, dated 28/2/2014) (also referred

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

801 (SC). In the absence of any explanation of the assessee, despite having being given a number of opportunities, as narrated above, these credits, amounting to Rs.13,52,000/- are treated as his income from undisclosed sources and added to his returned income.” Against the order of the ld. AO the petitioner filed appeal before

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

disallowing the excessive agriculture income claimed by the assessee in the absence of any evidence for the sale of agricultural produce.’ 3. The first ground is in respect of an addition for Rs.10 lacs made u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee, an agriculturist and colonizer, was during the relevant year engaged in development of a colony by the name