SH. BARAT PAL SOOD,,PHAGWARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

2 of the paper book]. The personal balances were thus wrongly compared by the assessing officer with their balances in the books of the assessee. The business transactions not being under any doubt were not referred to by the persons concerned in the affidavits. The addition made by the assessing officer was bad in law as relevant query which could

M/S. PUNJAB IRON & STEEL COMPANY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved from the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed additional evidence u/s 46A of the Act. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2014 and admission of additional evidence filed was rejected. The assessee filed appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

68,663/-, including fresh purchase for Rs.2.15 lacs during AY 2008-09. This needs to be explained, which was not. (g) the assessee’s turnover, at Rs.2733.91 lacs for the current year, up from a range of Rs.8-10 cr. for the preceding 3 years, falls to Rs.1.36 cr. for the following year, which in fact is found