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

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

bogus purchases. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 5 3. The sales have been confirmed meaning thereby you have purchased cotton from the open market in cash. The purchases being made in cash from open market, the applicability of provision of Section 40A

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

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

bogus purchase without any base and reason thereof without appreciating that the said amount is very excessive and arbitrary. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has wrongly made an addition of Rs. 19,33,905 u/s. 69C on account of alleged unexplained purchases from one Sumanpreet Singh completely disregarding

SH. SHER SINGH RANA,SOLAN vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआदेश/Order

Section 40A(3) of l.T. Act 1961.” 9 A.Y.2016-17 6. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that firstly on the issue of bogus liability for financial year 2014-15, there is no basis for arriving at such a finding by the Ld. Pr.CIT as she has failed to consider the entries in the ledger account so submitted

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S BRONZE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Bronze Logistics P.Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 863 Industrial Area-A, Circle Vii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan No. : Aabcb9505H

purchases could very well have been considered while passing an order within the statutory time limit and the suspicion that the transactions may be bogus does not warrant reference being made to a statutory audit. As noted even after utilizing the extended time period genuineness of the documents has not been upset. Similarly the observations made in para

SH. BAWA PASRICHA,KULLU vs. DCIT, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical

section 40A(3) where the payment is made for the purchase of products manufactured or processed without the aid of power in a cottage industry. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has not made the payments in question to a cottage industry or for a product manufactured or processed in a cottage industry

SURINDER KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Itat Shall Not Be Filed In Cases Where The Tax Effect Does Not Exceed The Monetary Limit Of Rs. 20 Lacs. The Tax Will Not Include Any Interest Thereon. It Is Further Clarified That If In The Case Of An Assessee, Disputed Issues Arise In More Than One Assessment Year, Appeal Can Be Filed In Respect Of Such Assessment Year Or Years In Which The Tax Effect In Respect Of Disputed Issues Exceeds The Monetary Limit So Specified.

bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Deptt. is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. (Copy of Judgement enclosed herewith). DCIT vs Rohini Builders (2003) 182 CTR 0373,(2002) 256 ITR 0360 (High Court of Gujrat

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA vs. SH SURENDER KUMAR PROP, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Itat Shall Not Be Filed In Cases Where The Tax Effect Does Not Exceed The Monetary Limit Of Rs. 20 Lacs. The Tax Will Not Include Any Interest Thereon. It Is Further Clarified That If In The Case Of An Assessee, Disputed Issues Arise In More Than One Assessment Year, Appeal Can Be Filed In Respect Of Such Assessment Year Or Years In Which The Tax Effect In Respect Of Disputed Issues Exceeds The Monetary Limit So Specified.

bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Deptt. is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. (Copy of Judgement enclosed herewith). DCIT vs Rohini Builders (2003) 182 CTR 0373,(2002) 256 ITR 0360 (High Court of Gujrat

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S PUBLIC CLOTHING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objections of

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1018/Chd/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Acit, M/S Public Clothing (P) Ltd., बनाम Circle-7, F-155, Sainik Farm, Ludhiana New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccp4429P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 40A(3) was to check the unaccounted / non-genuine payments, he accordingly deleted the impugned disallowance. 4. Before us, the Ld. DR has submitted that the judgement arrived at in the case of Jurisdictional High Court in ‘Gurdas Garg vs CIT’ (supra) has now been recalled by the Hon'ble High Court and the matter has been fixed

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

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