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

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

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

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

68 on a/c of difference in ledger balance with one Ramesh Kumar & Co). 4. The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by upholding both the additions on merits by observing as follows: “In view of the above facts, it is pertinent to note that the assessee has made cash payments on various dates

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

B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas in the case under reference, the upholding of the addition would have resulted in payment of additional taxes. The appellant craves to amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the return of income in this case was filed through e-filing

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

b) Malkiat singh 30,000/- board c) Malkiat Singh 49,000/- 21.02.2014 Balance payment for dash board d) United Motors 21,880/- 18.03.2018 Nature of expenditure not specified 3 ITA No. 514 (Asr)/2017 (AY 2014-15) Basant Kumar v. Dy. CIT Before us, it was contended by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee’s counsel, that the assessee

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