SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

271(1)(b) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to ₹ 10,000/- . The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed. From the above submission your honor is very humbly submitted to delete the penalty

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

271(1)(b) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to ₹ 10,000/- . The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed. From the above submission your honor is very humbly submitted to delete the penalty

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

2 is therefore not maintainable. Further, without prejudice to the above, the plea as to non-strike off of one of the two limbs on which a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) becomes leviable, is even otherwise not maintainable in the facts of the case. This is, as apparent, and as also evident from the assessment and the penalty order

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven

SH. KASTURI LAL MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which

SH. KASTURI LAL MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

143(3)/153A of the Act. It was observed by the assessing officer that the assessee has shown the income at Rs.5,20,870/- in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being recorded by the AO to suspect and not to belief; non-service of notice issued u/s 148. Approval of the PCIT u/s 151(2) of the Act, and one Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors additional legal ground that Notice u/s

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being recorded by the AO to suspect and not to belief; non-service of notice issued u/s 148. Approval of the PCIT u/s 151(2) of the Act, and one Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors additional legal ground that Notice u/s

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being recorded by the AO to suspect and not to belief; non-service of notice issued u/s 148. Approval of the PCIT u/s 151(2) of the Act, and one Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors additional legal ground that Notice u/s