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

158 taxmann.com 395 (Chennai-Trib.)[13-09-20231 INCOME TAX : Where Assessing Officer, based on sworn statement recorded from one directors of assessee-company. disallowed claim of expenditure made by assessee towards special salary etc. and brought same to tax, since impugned addition was made merely on basis of statement and without any credible evidence. same was to be deleted

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order

VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

68,180/- which is duly disclosed\nin the return of income filed on 11.01.2022. The said return was\nprocessed on 26.05.2022 accepting the returned income filed on\n11.01.2022. That there were difficulties faced by the taxpayers in\nelectronic filing of Income-tax returns and various forms. In\npresent case, the assessee was not able to opt new regime as there

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned orders. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the rival contention and material on record referred thereof. The Ld AR stated

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

68,975/- made to M/s. Narendra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. does not come within the purview of the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) on account of the fact that the payment is in the nature of reimbursement of expenses as held in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers