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

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 ₹ 2,68,72,976/- and directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment on the issues discussed above because

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

1. For that Ld. CIT(Appeals) Dhanabd was unjustified in sustaining addition of alleged non-substantiated unsecured loan amounting to ₹ 45,00,000/- on flimsy grounds. The addition sustained is unjustified and uncalled for. 1.1 For that complete details of the Cash Creditors including confirmation of the loan, Audited accounts, Acknowledgment if IT return, their bank account of the Hallmark

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.)

1 ,50,000/- was treated as unexplained cash credit and the same was added back to the total income of the appellant u/s 68 of the IT. Act. 6. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition; observing the following: “3.2 In view of the above finding of the Assessing Officer, I hold; relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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