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

section 40A (3) being cash payment made on account of purchase of property being stock in trade and Rs. 6,50,000/- towards three credits received during the year u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, besides Rs. 22,525/- on interest paid to these creditors. He argued that during the course of appellate proceedings, written submissions were filed. However

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 2000-01 - Assessee had taken loans from various persons - Assessing Officer made addition treating said loans as undisclosed income of assessee on ground that creditworthiness of creditors could not be established by assessee - On appeal, Tribunal found that assessee had placed on record affidavits of creditors

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

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

7. Again, the A.O has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 41,62,600/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called

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

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

7. Again, the A.O has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 41,62,600/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called

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

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

7. Again, the A.O has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 41,62,600/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called

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

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

7. Again, the A.O has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 41,62,600/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred on facts and law while confirming the action of the AO of disallowing Rs. 2663573/ on account of alleged violation of the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act by making payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in cash without appreciating the submissions of the assessee

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 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

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

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 effective from the assessment year 2013-14 vide which it has been mandated that such sums shall treated as explained only when the nature and source of funds is also explained by the recipient assessee company in the hands of the shareholder.” 4. The ld. AR placed that during the assessment

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