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 STEEL CITY FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

68 ITD 407. 5 ITA Nos.183/Ran/15 29/Ran/16 & CO No. 21/Ran/17 15. In view of above, we are of the view that the order of the CIT-A on this issue is justified. Thus, ground no. 1 relating to unaccounted purchase and sale raised by the revenue in the appeal is dismissed. 16. Ground no. 2 is relating to deletion

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

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

2. We come to assessee’s appeal ITA No. 309/Ran/2016. Its first substantive ground challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action invoking sec.40A(3) disallowance of Rs.69.91 lac regarding purchases and other transaction with eight payees. We notice from the CIT(A)’s order under challenge in para 4.2 that he has simply brushed aside assessee’s explanation

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

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

2. We come to assessee’s appeal ITA No. 309/Ran/2016. Its first substantive ground challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action invoking sec.40A(3) disallowance of Rs.69.91 lac regarding purchases and other transaction with eight payees. We notice from the CIT(A)’s order under challenge in para 4.2 that he has simply brushed aside assessee’s explanation

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

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

2. We come to assessee’s appeal ITA No. 309/Ran/2016. Its first substantive ground challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action invoking sec.40A(3) disallowance of Rs.69.91 lac regarding purchases and other transaction with eight payees. We notice from the CIT(A)’s order under challenge in para 4.2 that he has simply brushed aside assessee’s explanation