ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED , TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

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

section 151 of the Act." Notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act,1961 was issued on 30.03.2018 and served on assessee on 30.03.2018. In response to the notice u/s 148, assessee e-filed his return on 26.12.2018 at a income of Rs. 77,66,950/-. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 15.10.2018, fixing the case for hearing

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 , KAPUTHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, ITA

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

2 of sub-section 1 of Section 263 also provides that the order which is passed without making inquiries/verification, which should have been made, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. Therefore, the said order passed on 29.12.2016 is set-aside to the file of the assessing officer

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

2. That learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld rejection of submitted evidence of government records establishing movement of claimed purchases. 3. That the appellant was not allowed sought opportunity of hearing through video conference. 4. That assessment framed on the facts & circumstances of the case is illegal which could only be made under section 153c as document on the basis

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

purchase of agricultural land u/s 54B calculated the capital gain in all the three cases as under:- S.No. Name of Assessee Capital Gain Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

purchase of agricultural land u/s 54B calculated the capital gain in all the three cases as under:- S.No. Name of Assessee Capital Gain Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

purchase of agricultural land u/s 54B calculated the capital gain in all the three cases as under:- S.No. Name of Assessee Capital Gain Assessed 1. Sh. Boota Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 2. Sh. Babbu Singh Rs. 95,90, 100/- 3. Sh. Nachhatar Singh Rs. 87,49,720/- ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 6 6. The assessees filed appeals before

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

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

151 of the Act. During hearing before he ld. PCIT, the ld. AR submitted the following details which are enclosed in APB page 1 to 16. The relevant paragraph of assessee’s submission is extracted as below: 13. Now coming to the issues raised in the SCN as regards the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,97,93,175/- from

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 by recording incorrect facts/reasons and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 as envisaged under the Income

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 by recording incorrect facts/reasons and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 as envisaged under the Income

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 143(1), Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment proceedings subsequently on basis of information supplied by Investigation wing of department that assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties. 6 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (ii) Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) (iii) Priya Blue Industries [2021] 130 taxmann.com 492 (Gujarat

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

151 of the act by way of writing “Yes, It is a fit case”, in the approval form, as we understand that the Addl./Joint CIT was not required to reiterate the reasons recorded by the assessing officer under section 147 of the act. Thus ground number 3 and 4 of the appellant are rejected. Adjudication on merits

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

151. Another issue related to depreciation on capital subsidy which were challenged by the assessee, the depreciation u/s 32 on building, plant and machinery which was added back by the ld. AO. Bank charges on bank guarantee was also added back by the ld. AO in the assessment. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged before