M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

reopening were for 1948-49 on 5th December 1957. The assessee therefore filed a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the notice dated 5th December 1957 seeking to re-open the assessment for Assessment Year 1948-49 is time barred under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The revenue contended that

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

depreciation as also the directions issued by the Dy. Commissioner under section 144A of the Act dated 26-10-1998 cannot be sustained. The same are hereby vacated. The Assessing Officer will now proceed with the assessment under section 147 in accordance with law. For the sake of clarification, we may repeat that nothing observed by us in this case

SHIVAM ENTERPRISES HARBILAS,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 194/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12

depreciation rate, even regarding it to be a case of hire, is at 30%, and justify the reopening on that basis. 4. In my considered view, therefore, no case for reopening of assessment

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

reopen the assessment u/s. 147. No contention in its 4 ITA No.451 (Asr)/2017(A.Y.2012-13) Varinder Kumar Soul v. ITO respect in fact stands raised before us. Rather, could not be inasmuch as the assessee, after failing to disclose any additional income per the return in pursuance to notice u/s. 148, offers additional rental income (at Rs.385,830 - which

SH.SHREE GURU NANAK DEV QUIN-CENTENARY CELEBRATION COMMITTEE,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Asr/2019 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shree Guru Nanak Dev Vs. Ito(Exemptions) Ward, Quin-Centenary Celebrations Jalandhar Committee, Guru Nanak Bhawan, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aawfs 2431 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (" यथ" / Respondent) : Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate िनधा"!रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By : Shri M.P.Singh, Cit-Dr राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सुनवाई क" तार'ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार'ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Ludhiana, Dated 08.02.2019, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Erroneous & Perverse & Thus Needs To Be Quashed. 2. That The Issuance Of Notice U/S 147/148 Is Bad In Law As No New Material Was There With The Ao To Initiate Action U/S 147 & The Proceedings In Furtherance Of Illegal Notice Are Void Ab-Initio & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 3. That The Addition Made By Ao & Partially Confirmed By Cit (A) Is Devoid Of Proper Appreciation Of Facts On Record & Against Express Provisions Of Law & Deserve To Be Set Aside. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Disposal Of The Present Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.06.2010 Declaring Total Income After Claiming Exemption

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening

M/S PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

reopened the assessment years by persuasion of notice u/s 148 of the Act, had treated the assessee as an AOPand had disallowed the claim u/s 11. The assessee was denied the benefit claim u/s 11 of the Act. In ITA No. 581/Asr/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 only the expenses are disallowed amount of Rs.4,75,269/- depreciation

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

reopened the assessment years by persuasion of notice u/s 148 of the Act, had treated the assessee as an AOPand had disallowed the claim u/s 11. The assessee was denied the benefit claim u/s 11 of the Act. In ITA No. 581/Asr/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 only the expenses are disallowed amount of Rs.4,75,269/- depreciation

M/S. PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

reopened the assessment years by persuasion of notice u/s 148 of the Act, had treated the assessee as an AOPand had disallowed the claim u/s 11. The assessee was denied the benefit claim u/s 11 of the Act. In ITA No. 581/Asr/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 only the expenses are disallowed amount of Rs.4,75,269/- depreciation

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITURE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

reopened the assessment years by persuasion of notice u/s 148 of the Act, had treated the assessee as an AOPand had disallowed the claim u/s 11. The assessee was denied the benefit claim u/s 11 of the Act. In ITA No. 581/Asr/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 only the expenses are disallowed amount of Rs.4,75,269/- depreciation

M/S.PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JALANDHAR

In the result, the ITA No

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

reopened the assessment years by persuasion of notice u/s 148 of the Act, had treated the assessee as an AOPand had disallowed the claim u/s 11. The assessee was denied the benefit claim u/s 11 of the Act. In ITA No. 581/Asr/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 only the expenses are disallowed amount of Rs.4,75,269/- depreciation

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

Assessment Years under consideration were reopened on identical reasons on account of claim of bogus expenses claim whereas the additions were made on account of sundry creditors, depreciation

SMT. BHARTI SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

Assessment Years under consideration were reopened on identical reasons on account of claim of bogus expenses claim whereas the additions were made on account of sundry creditors, depreciation

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

Assessment Years under consideration were reopened on identical reasons on account of claim of bogus expenses claim whereas the additions were made on account of sundry creditors, depreciation

SH. KARAMJIT SINGH RAI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this act has been computed." 9. The law on the provisions of section 147 is very clear. Section 147 authorizes the Assessing Officer to assess or re-assess the income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that the income for any assessment order has escaped assessment and has duly recorded

SH. RAJINDER KUMAR CHADHA,BEAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.28/Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2003-04 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Rajinder Kumar Chadha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, K/105, Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Ward-4(3) Amritsar Beas Pan:Abipc 5206 H अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

reopened under section 148 vide notice dated 22.03.2010. The assessment was made under section 143 (3) read with section 147 on 13.11.2002 by determining long-term capital gain on sale of two properties at Rs. 12,64,416. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT (A). However, CIT (A) has confirmed the addition so made. Then the assessee

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

reopened on period of limitation as argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee under section 149 of the Act. As regards the 56 principles laid down by the various courts of law, the issue is with regard to formation of industrial undertaking has been examined in the initial assessment year and once the claim has been allowed especially under

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

reopened on period of limitation as argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee under section 149 of the Act. As regards the 56 principles laid down by the various courts of law, the issue is with regard to formation of industrial undertaking has been examined in the initial assessment year and once the claim has been allowed especially under

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

reopened on period of limitation as argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee under section 149 of the Act. As regards the 56 principles laid down by the various courts of law, the issue is with regard to formation of industrial undertaking has been examined in the initial assessment year and once the claim has been allowed especially under