SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE(3) , LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 69 being the commission paid on bogus purchase and sales by the assessee company. 26. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on account of alleged payment of commission on bogus purchase and sales forming part of the audited books of account wherein the assessee has already disclosed

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 69 being the commission paid on bogus purchase and sales by the assessee company. 26. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on account of alleged payment of commission on bogus purchase and sales forming part of the audited books of account wherein the assessee has already disclosed

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 69 being the commission paid on bogus purchase and sales by the assessee company. 26. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on account of alleged payment of commission on bogus purchase and sales forming part of the audited books of account wherein the assessee has already disclosed

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 69 being the commission paid on bogus purchase and sales by the assessee company. 26. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on account of alleged payment of commission on bogus purchase and sales forming part of the audited books of account wherein the assessee has already disclosed

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 69 being the commission paid on bogus purchase and sales by the assessee company. 26. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on account of alleged payment of commission on bogus purchase and sales forming part of the audited books of account wherein the assessee has already disclosed

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

4. From the above noted reply and after examination of books of account, it has been emerged that the purchases made from the abovesaid party as recorded in the books of account are not proved for the reason that the abovesaid party is not in existence as discussed in detail in succeeding paras. It appears that the assessee has made

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

4. From the above noted reply and after examination of books of account, it has been emerged that the purchases made from the abovesaid party as recorded in the books of account are not proved for the reason that the abovesaid party is not in existence as discussed in detail in succeeding paras. It appears that the assessee has made

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

4. From the above noted reply and after examination of books of account, it has been emerged that the purchases made from the abovesaid party as recorded in the books of account are not proved for the reason that the abovesaid party is not in existence as discussed in detail in succeeding paras. It appears that the assessee has made

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

purchase of chillies. The chillies purchased by the assessee are sorted, graded as per Agmark specifications. Better quality chillies are picked up and sorted out for export and before export they are clipped and stemmed and subjected to fumigation under expert technical hands in order to prevent deterioration and with a view to give better polish and appearance and during

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

purchase of chillies. The chillies purchased by the assessee are sorted, graded as per Agmark specifications. Better quality chillies are picked up and sorted out for export and before export they are clipped and stemmed and subjected to fumigation under expert technical hands in order to prevent deterioration and with a view to give better polish and appearance and during

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Act, 1961 dated 09.08.2018. In response, he stated that the said list contains the names of firms were controlled by Sh. Sat Paul Singla, Managing Director of SP Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Since Sh. Gurinder Kumar Garg was the auditor of SP Singla Group he was directed by Sh. Sat Paul Singla to file Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

bogus sales which result in inflated gross profits" Accordingly, while estimating profits of the Appellant I have considered the total sales as declared by the Appellant and supported by VAT return. On the above observations, the following points/issues are made out as under A. Cash deposit is a part of sale proceeds and provision of section

DEEPIKA GARG, E-392, PHASE-VI, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), LUDHIANA, JAO, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM Deepika Garg E-392, Phase-VI Focal Point, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACAPG4693H अपीलार्थी/Appellant आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 96/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 बनाम The ITO Ward-1(5), Ludhiana प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख / D

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition of Rs. 24 3. lacs on account of payment received from identifiable parties, against the purchases made by them from the assessee's Proprietary concern and the written submissions as filed in detail have not been considered properly

FASHION ZONE,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, WARD III(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 68/69 of the Act will amount to double taxation. It was submitted that in the instant case, the sales have been accepted as per the trading account filed by the assessee and there is no new unexplained credit/investment since there is available stock with the assessee and the opening stock, purchases, sales, closing sock have been accepted and, thus