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

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)

40A(3) of Income Tax Act and same has been challenged before NFAC New Delhi. 9. The ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing officer has made enquiry in respect of FMV of residential house as on 1-4-2001 vide notice under section 142(1) dated 07/02/2020 and asked for details of sale of property

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 40A(2)(b), holding such payment to be unreasonable. For this, the AO held that what was allowed as per the Memorandum of Association of the assessee Society was reimbursement of travel and other bonafide expenses, if they were incurred for attending meetings on behalf of the assessee or for engaging in other activities for the benefit

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATION SOCIETY , C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 40A(2)(b), holding such payment to be unreasonable. For this, the AO held that what was allowed as per the Memorandum of Association of the assessee Society was reimbursement of travel and other bonafide expenses, if they were incurred for attending meetings on behalf of the assessee or for engaging in other activities for the benefit

ASSISSTANT COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 40A(2)(b), holding such payment to be unreasonable. For this, the AO held that what was allowed as per the Memorandum of Association of the assessee Society was reimbursement of travel and other bonafide expenses, if they were incurred for attending meetings on behalf of the assessee or for engaging in other activities for the benefit

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,EXEMPTION,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 40A(2)(b), holding such payment to be unreasonable. For this, the AO held that what was allowed as per the Memorandum of Association of the assessee Society was reimbursement of travel and other bonafide expenses, if they were incurred for attending meetings on behalf of the assessee or for engaging in other activities for the benefit

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, 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, 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,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 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)

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

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)

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section