M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred u/s 92CA. Further the proviso under explanation 1 is also not required to be invoked as the AO already had time more than 60 days after the order of Hon'ble High Court. 5

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred u/s 92CA. Further the proviso under explanation 1 is also not required to be invoked as the AO already had time more than 60 days after the order of Hon'ble High Court. 5

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred u/s 92CA. Further the proviso under explanation 1 is also not required to be invoked as the AO already had time more than 60 days after the order of Hon'ble High Court. 5

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred u/s 92CA. Further the proviso under explanation 1 is also not required to be invoked as the AO already had time more than 60 days after the order of Hon'ble High Court. 5

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred u/s 92CA. Further the proviso under explanation 1 is also not required to be invoked as the AO already had time more than 60 days after the order of Hon'ble High Court. 5

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred u/s 92CA. Further the proviso under explanation 1 is also not required to be invoked as the AO already had time more than 60 days after the order of Hon'ble High Court. 5

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

transferred by the assessee to the M/s Devinder Kumar Deepesh Kumar ,as an accommodation entry for recording of bogus purchase, because 4 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 as per the AO the physical movement of goods could not be proved, in absence of any Bilty, weighment slip of goods, octroi receipts, and in absence of any proof

SHRI SURINDER SINGH DECEASED,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora

transferred through the banking channel, was subsequently changed to be paid in cash. The matter, it is to be borne in mind, came to surface on the basis of a complaint. Then, again, why would one, as Sh. Surinder Singh ostensibly does, give POA to another, an unrelated person? This is more so as both are residents of Amritsar

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

153 Taxmann.com 579 (SC) dismissed the SLP filed by revenue filed against the Hon’ble high 9 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama Mittal v. ITO court where adjudicating the matter on Section 69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

153 Taxmann.com 579 (SC) dismissed the SLP filed by revenue filed against the Hon’ble high 9 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama Mittal v. ITO court where adjudicating the matter on Section 69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

section 147 of the act. Thus ground number 3 and 4 of the appellant are rejected. Adjudication on merits of the case: In ground nos. 5 to 15, the quantum addition is challenged by spreading in multiple grounds with consequential interest to addition u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, and hence adjudicated simultaneously in the following paras