SH. JAI TEG SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptashri Jai Teg Singh, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, # 2431, Sector 79, Ward-6(2), Mohali. Mohali. Pan: Arjps5960R

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The firm claimed that these were payments to transporters, which have a higher permissible limit. However, the AO found that these payments were actually for retail purchases and not transportation, and the firm could not prove otherwise. Therefore, this disallowance was also confirmed. Additionally, the AO had disallowed Rs.10,24,000/- worth

M/S YASHODHA MOTORS PVT. LTD.,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1601/Chd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 40A(2)(b) in his show cause notice to the assessee to which due reply had been filed by the assessee after considering which no disallowance had been made. He therefore contended that this finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the principle of consistency did not apply was not based on proper appreciation of facts before

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

disallowance were made as per provision of section 40A(3) of the Act" are factually incorrect, legally misconceived, contrary to evidence on record; and in any case is vague, based on surmiseful considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further

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

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

disallowance were made as per provision of section 40A(3) of the Act" are factually incorrect, legally misconceived, contrary to evidence on record; and in any case is vague, based on surmiseful considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further

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

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

disallowance were made as per provision of section 40A(3) of the Act" are factually incorrect, legally misconceived, contrary to evidence on record; and in any case is vague, based on surmiseful considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further

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

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

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 was not allotted licence for the next financial year. When the assessee

M/S METALMAN AUTO PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Metalman Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Addl.C.I.T., E-127, Phase-V, Range-1, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabcm5441M (Appellant) (Respondent)

7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(Appeals). 8. We have heard the rival contentions and after perusing the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) we find merit in the contentions raised by Ld. counsel for assessee. The fact of availability of own interest free funds in the form of profits

M/S KAPSONS FASHION PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1014 To 1016/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in having confirmed disallowance of an amount of Rs. 1,28,000/- made by the Assessing officer by invoking the provisions of section 40A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KURUKSHETRA vs. JASVIR SINGH, VILLAGE DIWANA TEHSIL PEHOWA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 665/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ito, Jasvir Singh, Kurukshetra बनाम Village Diwana Tehsil Pehowa, Vs. Distt. Kurukshetra 136128 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cnqps4895G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.09.2023 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

Disallowance of the entire cash purchase results in abnormal trading profit for the assessee which it could never earn. There had never been any tax evasion with these transactions. The primary objective of enacting Section 40A(3) was to put a check on trading transactions with a mind to evade the liability to tax on income earned out of such

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.

Section 40A(3) as to why the same should not be disallowed. 6. In his submissions, the assessee submitted that since the assessee was new to the seller, the seller refused to accept the whole payment by way of crossed cheque/ draft and there were certain business exigencies due to which the assessee need to make payment urgently and therefore

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