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

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

68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu Vs. Puneet Sehdev

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

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

68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu Vs. Puneet Sehdev

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

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

68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu Vs. Puneet Sehdev

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

MEASAGE. HARYANA PLAST PRIVATE LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

40A(2)(b) reported in the audit report and ITR. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by the ld. AO. The notice u/s 263 was issued by the ld. PCIT and called the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue related to unsecured loan received by the assessee from Sh. Satya Pal Kumar amount of Rs.45

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

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred on facts and law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee, vide order u/s 250 of the Act dt. 17.10.2024, because the proceedings-initiated u/s 147/148 of the Act are void ab initio as the notice u/s 148 of the Act has not been served in accordance with the provisions

SHRI SURINDER KUMAR ,MANSA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

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

68. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda erred on facts and law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 505000/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 40A

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

40A(3) amount to Rs. 8,38,000/-.Being aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved revenue filed an appeal before us. Ground No.1 4. In the ground no. 1 of the revenue, the DR vehemently argued and contended that

SH. BASANT KUMAR,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 37(1) (for any revenue expenditure generally), etc. The matter stands dealt with and explained at considerable length by the Tribunal per its special bench decision in ITO v. Kenaram Saha and Subhash Saha [2009] 116 ITD 1 (Kol)(SB); and more recently in Gurdas Garg v. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 456/Asr/2013, dated 28/2/2014) (also referred

M/S. GRAND LILLY MOTELS LTD,,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-3, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A Nos.667 To 669 /Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Ys.:2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" M/S. Grand Lilly Motels Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Model Town, Jalandhar Income Tax, Pan: Aabcj 4527 E Circle- Iii, Jalandhar अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" ""यथ"

68 days in filing of the appeal. The learned Lilly Motels Limited v. ACIT-Circle-Jalandhar /I.T.A. No. 667,668& 669/ASR/2017/A.Y.:10-11- 11-12& 12-13Page 2 of 6 counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit that he was fallen sick due to which he was admitted in hospital and therefore, the delay was caused in filing

M/S GRAND LILLY LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A Nos.667 To 669 /Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Ys.:2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" M/S. Grand Lilly Motels Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Model Town, Jalandhar Income Tax, Pan: Aabcj 4527 E Circle- Iii, Jalandhar अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" ""यथ"

68 days in filing of the appeal. The learned Lilly Motels Limited v. ACIT-Circle-Jalandhar /I.T.A. No. 667,668& 669/ASR/2017/A.Y.:10-11- 11-12& 12-13Page 2 of 6 counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit that he was fallen sick due to which he was admitted in hospital and therefore, the delay was caused in filing

M/S PARADISE MULTIPLEX CUM VILLAS. PVT. LTD,ABOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II(3), ABOHAR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. 9. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the high-pitched assessment made by the Assessing Officer by making addition of Rs. 6,72,99,721/- against Nil returned income without affording proper and reasonable opportunity

M/S PARADIES MULTIPLEXS CUM VILLAS PVT LTD ,ABHOAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ABOHAR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. 9. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the high-pitched assessment made by the Assessing Officer by making addition of Rs. 6,72,99,721/- against Nil returned income without affording proper and reasonable opportunity

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

2. The appeal of the assessee has been taken for adjudication first. The briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer while relying upon the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Assessing Officer v. Pooja Construction Co. in ITA No. 750(Asr)/1992 (69 ITD 147) applied the gross profit

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

2. The appeal of the assessee has been taken for adjudication first. The briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer while relying upon the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Assessing Officer v. Pooja Construction Co. in ITA No. 750(Asr)/1992 (69 ITD 147) applied the gross profit

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

2 VRA Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT doubt the belief has turned out to be erroneous. But the assessee company has not withheld any such information relating to computation of income, so as to attract penalty provision of Sec.271(1)(c) as no claim of expenses has been found to be incorrect. In view of the aforesaid facts