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

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,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

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

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

40A(3) of the Act. Hence for the above reasons, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Being not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.79,51,206/- being the alleged undisclosed profit and Rs. 50,00,000/- unexplained initial investment

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

40A(3) of the Act. Hence for the above reasons, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Being not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.79,51,206/- being the alleged undisclosed profit and Rs. 50,00,000/- unexplained initial investment

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

40A(3) of the Act. Hence for the above reasons, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Being not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.79,51,206/- being the alleged undisclosed profit and Rs. 50,00,000/- unexplained initial investment

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

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

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 us. 3

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

3 VRA Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT charges as the same has been included in the operating income of the payee. Ultimately the Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the amount of Rs.4,45,986/- on account of handling charge qua M/s. Narendera Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.77,731/- on account of Trolly Fright payment made to Sohan Singh, Rs.4

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. 3

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

3. The brief fact of the case is that appellant is Society filed its return u/s. 139(1) declaring total taxable income at NIL. During assessment proceedings, the ld. AO found that assessee received interest total amount of Rs.6,69,669/- from Bank from surplus funds invested in the bank and in Central Cooperative Bank which did not relate

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