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

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

9 Saraogi Vs CIT”, 67 ITR 84 (S.C) and “Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT”, 88 ITR 323 (S.C). 9.2 It was held that evidently, the assessment order was erroneous and so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to the extent of verification of purchases and examination of the applicability of Section 40A(3) against

SHRI SUBHASH SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Tribunal, As Pointed Out By The Registry. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Of The Assessee. On Perusing The Application For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit Of The Assessee, The Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal Is Condoned.

delay of 15 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 13,53,380/- which was selected for scrutiny and after issuing notices and calling for the necessary information/documentation, the assessment was completed under section

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s Apex Builders, a firm engaged in civil and road construction work, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2012–13, declaring an income of Rs . 4,52,050/-. The return was filed electronically

M/S ANSHUL GOYAL LAND & HOUSING LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-VII, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

9,30,000/- under the head “Payment made in contravention” made u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any base and reasons thereof. 2.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in refusing to admit additional evidence u/s 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which goes to the grass root level

SH. ANSHUL GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-VII, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

9,30,000/- under the head “Payment made in contravention” made u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any base and reasons thereof. 2.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in refusing to admit additional evidence u/s 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which goes to the grass root level