SHRIRAM MARKETING SERVICES,GIRIDIH vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 263 of the Act dated 26/12/2022, set aside the order of Assessing Officer dated 24/09/2021 on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry or investigation to ascertain the nature, source and genuineness of ₹ 2,68

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

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

263/-. Therefore, this categorically goes to establish the liability to the extent of Rs.12,931/- in the name of Balaji Storage batteries Ltd. has been remitted/ceased. As regards the liability outstanding in the name of M/s Auto Car to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-, the third party communicated to the AO that no such liability is existing. However, during

INDIAN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,,DEOGHAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3,, DEOGHAR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

263 of the Act on 28/12/2017 and made additions of ₹ 45.00 lacs on account of unsecured loan on the ground that the genuineness of the same was not established during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 09/12/2021 for the assessment year under consideration, confirmed the order

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.)

68 of the I.T Act. The Assessing Officer's action is, therefore, upheld. The appellant fails on his grounds of appeal. 7. Aggrieved, by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused material available on record. We note that the AO has failed

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

263 revisional direction issued to the Assessing Officer for framing the afresh assessment year. He has failed to appreciate the fact that the instant second round of litigation is on merits. 3. It further emerges from the case file that the assessee has not paid any amount exceeding Rs.20,000/- in the course of a day in case

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

263 revisional direction issued to the Assessing Officer for framing the afresh assessment year. He has failed to appreciate the fact that the instant second round of litigation is on merits. 3. It further emerges from the case file that the assessee has not paid any amount exceeding Rs.20,000/- in the course of a day in case

M/S S.P ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

263 revisional direction issued to the Assessing Officer for framing the afresh assessment year. He has failed to appreciate the fact that the instant second round of litigation is on merits. 3. It further emerges from the case file that the assessee has not paid any amount exceeding Rs.20,000/- in the course of a day in case