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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

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

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

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

40A(3) is not sustainable in law. I.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 2 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in law in not accepting that earlier years losses as determined by rectification order by the Ld. A.O. in rectification order for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 be carried forward and adjusted against the income determined

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

3 , the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings has been initiated on the basis of change of opinion because both the issues, firstly the issue of disallowance of expenditure being hit by the provisions of section 40A

SH. BALDEV SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No.658/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

40A(3) of the Act. 11. The facts related to this issue are similar as were involved in assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in the former part of this order shall apply mutatis mutandis. 12. The another issue raised by the assessee relates to the addition of Rs.1,50,000/- made by the AO by invoking

SH. BALDEV SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No.658/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

40A(3) of the Act. 11. The facts related to this issue are similar as were involved in assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in the former part of this order shall apply mutatis mutandis. 12. The another issue raised by the assessee relates to the addition of Rs.1,50,000/- made by the AO by invoking

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

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

40A(3), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 6DD of\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit\n(Rule 6DD) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of\nmanufacturing of dairy products Assessee filed return and Assessing Officer passed\nassessment order after making certain additions - Principal Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVTE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also filed on record. So, it is requested that addition made

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

40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also filed on record. So, it is requested that addition made

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

40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also filed on record. So, it is requested that addition made

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

40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also filed on record. So, it is requested that addition made

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD 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

40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also filed on record. So, it is requested that addition made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also filed on record. So, it is requested that addition made

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX 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

40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also filed on record. So, it is requested that addition made

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD 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

40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also filed on record. So, it is requested that addition made

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD 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

40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also filed on record. So, it is requested that addition made

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA 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

40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also filed on record. So, it is requested that addition made