M/S AMAR CONTRUCTION AND ENGINEER ,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S HIMALYAN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S HIND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS CONTRCTORS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S ANAND ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SANGURUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S CHENAB CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS,SANGURUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

M/S AMBEY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

68,578/- being remuneration and interest respectively paid to partners may not be disallowed for the reason that the assessee had failed to provide a copy of partnership deed in this regard. 2.7 In response, it was the assessee’s submission that it had carried out the work as a subcontractor and had filed the return of income u/s 44AD

SMT. SURINDER KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case as well as without proper investigating the facts of the case and without providing opportunity of natural justice to the appellant. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the additions made as per above without considering additional evidence