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)

capital account and Rs. 11,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. as liabilities. But it did not furnish any information regarding sources of these credits and neither any confirmation from M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was furnished. Similarly, Para 8 of the questionnaire remained unanswered. Vide Para 9 of its reply, it was stated that

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)

capital account and Rs. 11,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. as liabilities. But it did not furnish any information regarding sources of these credits and neither any confirmation from M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was furnished. Similarly, Para 8 of the questionnaire remained unanswered. Vide Para 9 of its reply, it was stated that

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

274 ITR 405 held that, "where firms books show credit in partners name for which there is no satisfactionery explanation, section 69 is not applicable for firm's assessment." viii. In Babu Lal C Borana 298 ITR 313 Bombay High Court held that, "where the purchase transaction is recorded in regular books of accounts and the identity of vendor

BALWANT SINGH DHINDSA, ADV. SO KARTAR SINGH, #185 STREET NO. 11, PUNIA COLONY, SANGRUR, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD SANGRUR, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

gain in ROI [belated] has been considered\nsubject to verification by ld. AO only as explained sum.\nThe assessee is directed to file relevant submission\nbefore ld. AO for proper verification.\n3.11\nWith\nregard to remaining\ndeposit\nof\nRs.18,07,500/- it was claimed that assessee had received\ncash of Rs.4.50 lakh as agriculture lease income.\nFurther, sum of Rs.4

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

274 (Raj)., On behalf of the Revenue, CIT\nvs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. 1976 CTR (Gui)\n214 : (1977) 106 ITR 159 (Gui), a decision of the Gujarat High Court was cited.\nOn a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that in view of the aforesaid\nSupreme Court decisions, the view taken by the Rajasthan

VIKAS SABHARWAL HUF,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms as aforesaid

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

capital gain, bank interest and dividend income from company. 4. The assessee was asked to explain cash deposited during demonetization period of Rs. 30,00,000 on 22.12.2016 in the account of 50100072903398 maintained with HDFC Bank. In his reply the assessee stated that, "cash deposited during the demonetization period by the assessee is against income of Rs. 50.00 Lacs