SHRI BIRENDRA PRASAD,BOKARO vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BOKARO

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

bogus. We also note that the giver of the gift, Shri Dilip Prasad Burnwal died on 22-11-2007, which is much before the date of assessment order. Therefore, it was difficult of the assesse to produce Shri Dilip Prasad Burnwal before the AO. Therefore, the genuineness of the gift is not doubted. Hence, we delete impugned addition of Rs.1

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

bogus sundry creditors and should not be added to the income of the appellant. Accordingly, it was argued that the impugned addition made by Ld. assessing officer u/s 41(1) of the Act is required to be deleted. [7.1] The findings of the Assessment order, the written & oral submissions and documentary evidence furnished by the AR during the appellate proceedings

SHAH BROTHERS,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshah Brothers, A.C.I.T., Thana Lane, Chaibasa-833201 Central Circle-1, Vs. (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aazfs 7498 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

263 wherein the Assessing Officer took the stand that Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. was not existent at the given address and Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. did not have the machinery/excavation machinery to carryout the development of mining area. It was a submission that consequently the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 80,52,044/- as claimed by the assessee

M/S. SRIRAM POWER & STEEL PVT. LTD.,,RAMGARH vs. PR. CIT(C), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

bogus share application money and share premium from the said two companies as per the facts available on the assessment record. According to Ld. PCIT, the AO has failed to examine the investment and issue of share capital and share premium and thus has not verified the identity, creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions which has rendered

M/S. SRIRAM POWER & STEEL PVT. LTD.,,RAMGARH vs. PR. CIT(C), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

bogus share application money and share premium from the said two companies as per the facts available on the assessment record. According to Ld. PCIT, the AO has failed to examine the investment and issue of share capital and share premium and thus has not verified the identity, creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions which has rendered