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 DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

40A(3) of the Act is unsustainable. As in the cited case, here also, there is no evidence worth its name to incriminate the assessee and this conclusion has been arrived at only on premises and conjectures, rendering it unsustainable in the eye of law. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 38 12. Then

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

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

40A(3) of the Act is unsustainable. As in the cited case, here also, there is no evidence worth its name to incriminate the assessee and this conclusion has been arrived at only on premises and conjectures, rendering it unsustainable in the eye of law. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 38 12. Then

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

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

40A(3) of the Act is unsustainable. As in the cited case, here also, there is no evidence worth its name to incriminate the assessee and this conclusion has been arrived at only on premises and conjectures, rendering it unsustainable in the eye of law. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 38 12. Then

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

house, which is owned by Sarashri Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana, who are drawing salary as Principal and Director of the Society. The rent which is paid by the Society is being taken into consideration as perquisite in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana in their income tax returns. ii. For the purpose of payment

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

house, which is owned by Sarashri Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana, who are drawing salary as Principal and Director of the Society. The rent which is paid by the Society is being taken into consideration as perquisite in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana in their income tax returns. ii. For the purpose of payment

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

house, which is owned by Sarashri Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana, who are drawing salary as Principal and Director of the Society. The rent which is paid by the Society is being taken into consideration as perquisite in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana in their income tax returns. ii. For the purpose of payment

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

house, which is owned by Sarashri Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana, who are drawing salary as Principal and Director of the Society. The rent which is paid by the Society is being taken into consideration as perquisite in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana in their income tax returns. ii. For the purpose of payment

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

house, which is owned by Sarashri Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana, who are drawing salary as Principal and Director of the Society. The rent which is paid by the Society is being taken into consideration as perquisite in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana in their income tax returns. ii. For the purpose of payment

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

house, which is owned by Sarashri Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana, who are drawing salary as Principal and Director of the Society. The rent which is paid by the Society is being taken into consideration as perquisite in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana in their income tax returns. ii. For the purpose of payment

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

house, which is owned by Sarashri Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana, who are drawing salary as Principal and Director of the Society. The rent which is paid by the Society is being taken into consideration as perquisite in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana in their income tax returns. ii. For the purpose of payment

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

house, which is owned by Sarashri Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana, who are drawing salary as Principal and Director of the Society. The rent which is paid by the Society is being taken into consideration as perquisite in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sh. Sandeep Sardana in their income tax returns. ii. For the purpose of payment

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

2,00,000/- has not been claimed as a deduction, the provisions of Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

2,00,000/- has not been claimed as a deduction, the provisions of Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing

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

2,00,000/- has not been claimed as a deduction, the provisions of Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing

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

2,00,000/- has not been claimed as a deduction, the provisions of Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing

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

2,00,000/- has not been claimed as a deduction, the provisions of Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing

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

2,00,000/- has not been claimed as a deduction, the provisions of Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing