SHRI RAJIV KUMAR KHANNA ,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the appellant assessee stands dismissed as not pressed

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

section 131(1 )(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the back of the Appellant without the opportunity of cross examination and ignoring the affidavits filed during assessment as well as appellate proceedings. 8. That all the comments passed by the CIT(Appeals), while partly allowing the appeal, confirming the above additions, are based on assumptions, presumptions, surmises & conjectures

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

131 of the IT Act, 1961 wherein he deposed that he has operated various bank accounts in the name of various bogus/ defunct firms to facilitate the modus operandi of bogus purchases. M/s Punjab Rice Land Pvt. Ltd. is one of the concern which has booked bogus purchases from the aforesaid two bogus firms amounting

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

131 of the IT Act, 1961 wherein he deposed that he has operated various bank accounts in the name of various bogus/ defunct firms to facilitate the modus operandi of bogus purchases. M/s Punjab Rice Land Pvt. Ltd. is one of the concern which has booked bogus purchases from the aforesaid two bogus firms amounting

SHRI SHISH PAL SINGH,JALANHDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4) JALANDHAR

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

3, point no-5 (mentioned above) the reason to belief of the ld ITO was formed from a receipt. In the course of argument the counsel had pointed out that in the receipt there is no amount is mentioned. The ld. Sr. DR relied on the ‘recorded statement’ of different parties which were summoned u/s 131

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 143(1), Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment proceedings subsequently on basis of information supplied by Investigation wing of department that assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties. 6 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (ii) Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) (iii) Priya Blue Industries [2021] 130 taxmann.com 492 (Gujarat

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

reassessment are held to be devoid of any merits and substance and therefore, same are as such rejected. 12. In ground no. 3 & 4, the assessee has challenged approval granted by the CIT u/s 151 for issuing notice u/s 147 as bad in law. This issue of approval granted u/s 151 of the Income

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

reassessment proceeding due to the absence of any purchase agreements and details of transportation in respect of the said purchases and as such the same has remained unexplained and addition has been made of the entire amount of purchase totaling Rs.6,43,54,912/-, u/s 69C of the Act to the total income of the assessee as bogus purchase

SOM RAJ,PATHANKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATHANKOT

Bench: Shri. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

131 or u/s 133(6) of the Act; (ii). that the reasons on the basis of which the case of ITA No. 628/Asr/2016 – A.Y 2010-11 4 Som Raj. Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pathankot the assessee was reopened does not bear any nexus with the material available on record; (iii). that the AO prior to reopening of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. RAJNI MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. RAJNI MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. RAJNI MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. RAJNI MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement