M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said

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

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

disallowance made by the A.O Aggrieved, the revenue had assailed the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal, which however was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 153/Asr/2012, dated 15.11.2018 for low tax effect in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018. The A.O while framing the reassessment

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

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

disallowance made by the A.O Aggrieved, the revenue had assailed the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal, which however was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 153/Asr/2012, dated 15.11.2018 for low tax effect in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018. The A.O while framing the reassessment

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

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

disallowance made by the A.O Aggrieved, the revenue had assailed the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal, which however was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 153/Asr/2012, dated 15.11.2018 for low tax effect in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018. The A.O while framing the reassessment

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

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

disallowance made by the A.O Aggrieved, the revenue had assailed the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal, which however was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 153/Asr/2012, dated 15.11.2018 for low tax effect in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018. The A.O while framing the reassessment

SHRI BILAS CHAND,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17

disallowing’ these claims to the stated extent. 3 Bilas Chand v. ITO In appeal, the assessee, besides challenging the reassessment

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

reassessment proceedings has been initiated on the basis of change of opinion because both the issues, firstly the issue of disallowance

ESS KAY BHATTA COMPANY,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 278/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance thereof. The assessee challenged the same on several grounds, including the validity of the notice u/s. 148(1) dated 10.12.2015 and, thus, of the reassessment

M/S TORRENT ROOFING SYSTEM,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

disallowed as done by Assessing officer, and did not consider the case laws in support of that, so the order passed by Assessing officer and CIT (A) should be quashed and 100 % of the Royalty Expanses may be allowed as Revenue expanses as claimed by the assessee. 3. That the Reassessment

SH. SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL,,MUKTSAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BATHINDA

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 411/Asr/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal Dcit-Circle-Ii बनाम/ Vs. S/O Parkash Singh Badal Bhatinda. Vpo Badal, District Muktsar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abspb-1568-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal Ms. Muskan Garg (Cas) –Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

disallowance of Rs.2 Lacs. The assessee’s share therein @46.75% worked out to be Rs.2,87,083/- which was added to his income. Finally, the total income was assessed at Rs.32,49,450/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the legal ground assailing reassessment

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S KHOSLA INTERNATIONAL, BATALA

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance u/s. 14A. In fact, even on other grounds – the reopening having been initiated on four different grounds, as, for example, under-valuation of stock of paddy; concealment of husk produced, there is no discussion in the assessment order, indicating overlooking of the relevant aspect/facts having a direct bearing on the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The same

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific para 4.8 order of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted as below: “4.8 I have also gone through

M/S PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific para 4.8 order of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted as below: “4.8 I have also gone through

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITURE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific para 4.8 order of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted as below: “4.8 I have also gone through

M/S. PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific para 4.8 order of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted as below: “4.8 I have also gone through

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

disallowance of entertainment expenses Rs.10,000/- has no basis and without finding any proper lacuna in the books of accounts of assessee. 4. The ld. CIT DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The specific para 4.8 order of the ld. CIT(A) is extracted as below: “4.8 I have also gone through

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

reassessment proceedings and AO did not find any defect in the same. Reference in this regard is made to the reply filed by the assessee before AO on 03-12- 2018 which is placed at page 48 to 63 where all these evidences were filed. On the basis of this reply the AO has rendered assessment order dated

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

disallowed. It has been clearly established while framing the Assessment Order by the AO that the purchases made by the assessee were bogus in nature. Further, the proprietors of the firms from which purchases were made i.e Sh. Vijay Kumar, Prop. M/s Evergreen Sales Corporation and Sh. Naresh 3 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on new Plant & Machinery. ii) Addition on account of unaccounted investment in the capital to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the then AO had given various opportunities to the assessee to furnish its submissions on the above mentioned issues and other issues, as well. However, the assessee