Harneet Kaur Jujeja & Ors. v. Pr. CIT

108 TTJ 312Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#10963 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquiryassessment order erroneouslack of enquirymere change of opinionmalabar industrialchildlimited scrutinyerroneous and prejudicialchange of opinionsection 115bbsection 263

Judgments citing Harneet Kaur Jujeja & Ors. v. Pr. CIT

M/S Sushil Kumar Gupta & Company, Ambala City vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 270/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s Sushil Kumar Gupta & बनाम The Pr. CIT Company Panchkula 107, Urban Estate Sector-9, Ambala City -134003, Haryana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADFS4337F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR सुनवाई…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 92C

…riksh Realtors Private Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No.1626/Mum/2020, dated 22.10.2021 4. Balvinder Kumar Vs. PCIT, 187 ITD 454 (Del. Trib.) 5. Rajani Venkata Naga Annavarapu Vs. PCIT, ITA No.1817/Del/2020, dated 16.06.2021 (Del.- Trib.) 6. Gift Land Handicraft Vs. CIT, 108 TTJ 312 (Del.) 15 AY: 2016-17 7. Aryadeep Complex (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, [2022] 219 TTJ 735 (Raipur) 8. CIT Vs. Software Consultants, 341 ITR 240 (Delhi) 9. Simbhaoli Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 78 ITD 161 (SB). 8. He submitted, the CIT has committed gross jurisdictional error in invoking powers under section 263 of the Act in respect of issues which are…

Tej Paul Bhardwaj, Sunam vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ao & Furnished The Details Called

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Dahiya CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी”,, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH (Virtual Court) BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI R.L. NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 463/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2014-15 Taj Paul Bhardwaj, The Pr. C.I.T. बनाम Mohalla Bhaika, College Patiala. Road, Sunam. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AANPB 8544 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by: Sh. Sandeep Dahiya CIT (DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing: 18.02.2021 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of…

Sahayamatha Salterns Pvt. Limited, Tuticorin vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1498/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1498/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Sahayamatha Salterns Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, 13-A-1, Meenakshipuram Circle I, West, Tuticorin. Tuticorin 628 002. Tamil Nadu

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1498/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2014-2015. M/s. Sahayamatha Salterns Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, 13-A-1, Meenakshipuram Circle I, West, Tuticorin. Tuticorin 628 002. Tamil Nadu [PAN AACCS 0545D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. G. Baskar, Advoca…

Smt. Padmavathi, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward 3, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1306/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1306/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2014-2015 Smt. Padmavathi, Vs. The Income Tax officer, No.36A/66, Keezhapallivasal Street, Ward -3, Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli Dist. 627 657 [PAN BSVPP 4320E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate : Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, J…

Su-Raj Diamond Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 11, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 3098/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Su-Raj Diamond Dealers Pvt. Ltd; 73-C, Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax -11, Su-Raj House, Cross Road, Midc, Marol, Vs Mumbai Andheri (East),Mumbai – 400 093. Pan – Aaacs7142N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rajesh Shah & Ms. Ruchita Jain, A.R‟S. Respondent By: Shri T-Kipgen, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah & Ms. Ruchita Jain, A.R‟sFor Respondent: Shri T-Kipgen, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…benches of the Tribunal viz. (i). Mrs. Sonali Hemant Bhavsar Vs. Pr. CIT-29 [ITA No. 742/Mum/2019, dated 17.05.2019 (Mumbai)]; (ii) Sanjeev Kr. Khemka Vs. Pr. CIT-15, Kolkata [ITA No. 1361/Kol/2016 (Kolkata)]; and (iii). Gift Land Handicrafts Vs. CIT [(2007) 108 TTJ 312 (Delhi)]. It was thus the contention of the ld. A.R, that now when in the backdrop of the limited scope of scrutiny, it was not permissible for the A.O to have adverted to and therein adjudicated on the aspect of „closing stock‟, as the same admittedly fell beyond the realm of the reasons for which the case of the assessee was taken up for limite…

Harneet Kaur Jujeja & Ors. v. Pr. CIT (108 TTJ 312) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax