INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

MEASAGE. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was estimated by the AO as alleged initial investment trading in paddy, rice and their bye-products without rebutting the contentions of the assessee raised during the course of assessment as well

MEASEG. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was estimated by the AO as alleged initial investment trading in paddy, rice and their bye-products without rebutting the contentions of the assessee raised during the course of assessment as well

M/S SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was estimated by the AO as alleged initial investment trading in paddy, rice and their bye-products without rebutting the contentions of the assessee raised during the course of assessment as well

V R A COTTON MILLS.,ABOHAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

40A(ia) to Rs.13,72,079/- in place of Rs.1,42,58,665/-. 4.1 In the return of income, the assessee has also claimed deduction u/s 80IB @ 30% of the gross total income of Rs.65,40,056/-. The Assessing Officer reckoned that the gross total income included “other income” at Rs.53,15,330/- which could not be said

SHRI MOHAMMAD IQBAL QURESHI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), SRINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) and penalty was levied @100% of the tax sought to be evaded amount to Rs.1,89,726/-. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). After the detail hearing, the ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the penalty in favour of the revenue. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) before

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALANDHAR vs. SMT. BANEET KAUR BHASIN,, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

section 40A(3) of the Act amount to Rs. 2,80,000/- was not considered properly by the ld. CIT(A). the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo. The ld. DR has not made any objection against this issue. Needless to say, the assessee should get reasonable opportunity of hearing

SHRIMATI BANEET KAUR BHASIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

section 40A(3) of the Act amount to Rs. 2,80,000/- was not considered properly by the ld. CIT(A). the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo. The ld. DR has not made any objection against this issue. Needless to say, the assessee should get reasonable opportunity of hearing

SMT. BANEET KAUR BHASIN,,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

section 40A(3) of the Act amount to Rs. 2,80,000/- was not considered properly by the ld. CIT(A). the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo. The ld. DR has not made any objection against this issue. Needless to say, the assessee should get reasonable opportunity of hearing

SH GAUTAM SETH,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATALA

In the result, the Ground Nos

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

Section 40A(3) without appreciating the fact that the provision of 40A(3) is not applicable where the Gross Profit Ratio is estimated u/ s. 44AF. 5. That the AO and CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 14,88,263/- u/s. 44AF without appreciating the fact that the transaction of purchase

THE BAGHAPURANA & CO OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFEIER-2, MOGA

In the result, ground nos

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

section 40A (7) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of ld. A.O. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us for further adjudication. 4. The detail observation was made by the ld. AO in his Order in para no. 2. The extract of order is reproducing

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

Section 40a(ia) states that any amount on which tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid then such sum shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits of business or profession'. d. In the present case, TDS was to be deducted

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COPREATIVE -BANK,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee has not pressed, ground no-3 is

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

40a(ia). 2. That the addition of Rs.64,29,240/-, as made by Id.AO, by disallowance out of the provisions for bad & doubtful debts made at Rs.80 lacs, has been wrongly upheld by ld.CIT(A), without appreciating that the said provision was not made against standard loans, but against the aggregate advances made by rural branches of the Bank