CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

purchase of a house at Canada in the name of Smt. Damandeep Kaur during FY 2019-20. e) Diversion of funds amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- during FY 2015-16 to Smt. Jasmail Kaur. f) Diversion of funds through accommodation entries of unsecured loan by Sh. Satnam Singh Sandhu and his partnership firms - Amount of Rs.4,90,00,000 received

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)

Purchases Rs. 265.04 2 Freight Rs. 4.76 3 Duties Rs. 4.48 4 Consumption of stores and spare parts Rs. 10.29 5 Other Expenses Rs. 174.23 On analysis of report of. the investigation wing and the return of income, it is clear that bogus expense of Rs. 36,10,58,438/- has been booked by the assessee company during the year

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

section 145(3) it was submitted that assesses has maintained books of account with supporting vouchers and completion of assessment u/s 144 is unwarranted. Regarding cash deposit, it was argued that the detail reply has been submitted and it does not call for any addition. The reply of the assessee was considered and discussed by the AO stating that

KALANEEDHI JEWELLERS LLP,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

section 145(3) it was submitted that assesses has maintained books of account with supporting vouchers and completion of assessment u/s 144 is unwarranted. Regarding cash deposit, it was argued that the detail reply has been submitted and it does not call for any addition. The reply of the assessee was considered and discussed by the AO stating that

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)

270 Pcs Coating 5.00 Iron 106 Pcs 5.00 C-Channel 34. Ashima 034 Coppelor 980 Pcs Powder 5.00 Industries dtd. 14.09.2006 Plate 860 Pcs Coating 5.00 C-Channel 370 Pcs 5.00 Run Fix 190 Pcs 5.00 Supporting Iron 35 Ashima 035 L-Clamp I730PCS Powder 1.00 Industries dtd. 15.09.2006 (Small) 740 Pcs Coating 2.00 L-Clamp

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)

270 Pcs Coating 5.00 Iron 106 Pcs 5.00 C-Channel 34. Ashima 034 Coppelor 980 Pcs Powder 5.00 Industries dtd. 14.09.2006 Plate 860 Pcs Coating 5.00 C-Channel 370 Pcs 5.00 Run Fix 190 Pcs 5.00 Supporting Iron 35 Ashima 035 L-Clamp I730PCS Powder 1.00 Industries dtd. 15.09.2006 (Small) 740 Pcs Coating 2.00 L-Clamp

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page 219-220, Notes on clauses to Finance Bill

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

bogus commission income. No such document has been brought to my notice by the AO or Survey Report that establishes trail of transfer of cash clandestinely to the members of the society. Hence, if there is bogus commission raised by the members of the society, Ld.AO is free to initiate action against the members in their personal capacities as they

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

bogus commission income. No such document has been brought to my notice by the AO or Survey Report that establishes trail of transfer of cash clandestinely to the members of the society. Hence, if there is bogus commission raised by the members of the society, Ld.AO is free to initiate action against the members in their personal capacities as they

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

bogus commission income. No such document has been brought to my notice by the AO or Survey Report that establishes trail of transfer of cash clandestinely to the members of the society. Hence, if there is bogus commission raised by the members of the society, Ld.AO is free to initiate action against the members in their personal capacities as they

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

bogus commission income. No such document has been brought to my notice by the AO or Survey Report that establishes trail of transfer of cash clandestinely to the members of the society. Hence, if there is bogus commission raised by the members of the society, Ld.AO is free to initiate action against the members in their personal capacities as they

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

bogus commission income. No such document has been brought to my notice by the AO or Survey Report that establishes trail of transfer of cash clandestinely to the members of the society. Hence, if there is bogus commission raised by the members of the society, Ld.AO is free to initiate action against the members in their personal capacities as they