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

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

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

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

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

section 2(24BA) of I.T.Act as under: “Manufacture” with its grammatical variations means a change in non-living physical object or article or thing:- a) Resulting in transformation of the object or article or thing into a new and distinct object or article or thing having a different name, character and use, or b) Bringing into existence

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

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

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI 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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL 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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI 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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL 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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL 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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

THE HALDHAR FOODS(P) LTD.,FEROZPUR CANTT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III(5), FEROZPUR

In the result, the appeal i

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

1. That the learned Assessing Officer-cum Income Tax Officer, Ward-III(5), has passed orders of penalty on 31.3.2015 to the tune of Rs.150000/- for not getting books audited under section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 under Section 271(B) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on conjectures and surmises. The same may kindly be deleted. 2. That

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S