SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2) and 142(1) were issued alongwith questionnaire, and after taking into consideration the submission filed by the assessee and carrying out the necessary verification/ examination, the assessment proceedings were completed under section 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) &143(3B) of the Act, wherein the assessed income was determined at Rs. 88,44,429/- after making the disallowance under section

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowed the entire amount of Rs . 2,24,305 under the said section. 4.2 Further, the AO noted multiple instances of cash purchases exceeding Rs . 20,000/- made to the same party on the same day, in violation of section 40A

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

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

2. That the conclusion of learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax that "the assessment order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue to the extent of verification of purchases and examining of applicability of section 40A(3) against cash purchase" is based on fundamental misconception

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

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

2. That the conclusion of learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax that "the assessment order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue to the extent of verification of purchases and examining of applicability of section 40A(3) against cash purchase" is based on fundamental misconception

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

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

2. That the conclusion of learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax that "the assessment order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue to the extent of verification of purchases and examining of applicability of section 40A(3) against cash purchase" is based on fundamental misconception

A.K.MULTIMETALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE, MANDI GOBIND GARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act’ ). The AO observed that the replies submitted by the assessee revealed that no justification along with documentary evidence have been provided, which could substantiate the rationale of these payments. He, therefore, disallowed

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)

section 40A(3) are not applicable in the case of appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed a sum of Rs. 67,500 being 1/3rd of car expenses of Rs. 202,500 incurred, actually paid and claimed by the appellant on flimsy grounds without properly appreciating

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

40A(3) of the l.T.Act, 1961. And to avoid any disallowance, he has submitted fictitious documents (Ikrarnama) before the Assessing Officer claiming that the property of the father has been sold. As the AO has failed to consider this the order issued by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee

SH. SUNIL KHULLAR,SAMRALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavi.T.A. No.137/Chandi/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Sunil Khullar........................... ………................……............…..….. Appellant C/O Sat Parkash & Company, Ward No.7, H.No.10, Kang Mohalla, Samrala. [Pan:Azqpk0380E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-Khanna....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. S. Bhasin, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2022 Order

disallowance under section 40A(3) and in further enhancing the same by Rs.16,47,597/-. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment ought to have been made by estimating the income after invoking section 145(3) when the books were found to be incomplete and incorrect, rather than making superfluously inflated additions

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)

2. Mod Furniture, assessee has shown cash payment of Rs.18,000/- on 21.06.2006, Rs. 13,172/- on 24.06.2006, Rs. 16,032/- on 1.07.2006 and Rs. 6,610/- on 2.07.2006. On the other hand in regular books of account provided, during assessment proceedings, these cash payments are reflected on 15.03.2007, 14.03.2007, 2.02.2007 and on 6.02.2007 respectively. It means cash was paid

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)

2. Mod Furniture, assessee has shown cash payment of Rs.18,000/- on 21.06.2006, Rs. 13,172/- on 24.06.2006, Rs. 16,032/- on 1.07.2006 and Rs. 6,610/- on 2.07.2006. On the other hand in regular books of account provided, during assessment proceedings, these cash payments are reflected on 15.03.2007, 14.03.2007, 2.02.2007 and on 6.02.2007 respectively. It means cash was paid

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

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

40A(9) has been amended to provide that a contribution made for the purposes and to the ex- tent provided under section 36(1)(iva) would not be disallowed as a deduction in the hands of the employer. 10.6 Applicability. These amendments take effect from 1-4-2012, and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

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

40A(9) has been amended to provide that a contribution made for the purposes and to the ex- tent provided under section 36(1)(iva) would not be disallowed as a deduction in the hands of the employer. 10.6 Applicability. These amendments take effect from 1-4-2012, and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year

TYNOR ORTHOTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1), MOHALI, MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs.85,00,000 under Section 40A(2). 4.2 Further, out of Rs.14,04,936/- claimed as software expenses

SH. GURMAL SINGH H NO R-18 NEW GRAIN MARKET NEAR JAIN HOSPITAL, JALANDHAR BYEPASS ROAD, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved

Section 40A(3) of the Act is concerned; the ld. AO in his “Impugned Assessment Order dated 24.12.2022 (supra)” has discussed the issue from pages 52 to 72. The Show Cause Notice has been reproduced by the ld. AO in the impugned assessment order dated 24.12.2022 (supra) from pages 53 to 59. The reply to the Show Cause Notice