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

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

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

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

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

Section 40A(3) of the Act by making payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in cash without appreciating the submissions of the assessee. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred on facts and lawwhile confirming the action of the AO of making the addition of Rs. 16,76,426/ on account of alleged difference in the account

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(3

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

40A(3) per se, stating that no substantial question arose for being answered by it, the decision by the tribunal, challenged before it, in which one of the pleas was the deposit of cash in the payee’s bank account, was found by it as not perverse or erroneous. The disallowance in respect of expenditure incurred on account of Dada

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

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 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

40A(3). The assessee claimed that the cash payment is exempted U/R 6DD(e) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 ( in short Rule). The ld. CIT(A) in its order specifically mentioned that the Rule 6DD(e) is not applicable for the assessee’s transaction. The Rule 6DD(e) is extracted as below. “6DD(e) where the payment is made

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

40A(3). The assessee claimed that the cash payment is exempted U/R 6DD(e) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 ( in short Rule). The ld. CIT(A) in its order specifically mentioned that the Rule 6DD(e) is not applicable for the assessee’s transaction. The Rule 6DD(e) is extracted as below. “6DD(e) where the payment is made

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

40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act respectively. Recently, the ITAT Amritsar Bench, at Amritsar, in the case of ITO v. Nikhil Infra-Tech Ltd. in ITA No.272(Asr)/2017, in the similar and identical circumstances estimated the Net profit rate @ 5% of the turn over and further affirmed the deletion of disallowance on account of depreciation

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

40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) of the Act respectively. Recently, the ITAT Amritsar Bench, at Amritsar, in the case of ITO v. Nikhil Infra-Tech Ltd. in ITA No.272(Asr)/2017, in the similar and identical circumstances estimated the Net profit rate @ 5% of the turn over and further affirmed the deletion of disallowance on account of depreciation

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

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