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

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

56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward 2(2

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

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

56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward 2(2

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in confirming penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act since no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271( 1 )(C) of the Act which makes the penalty imposed illegal

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH PROP KARNAIL SINGH SUKHDEV SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), AMRITSAR

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

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

2,00,000/- 10.09.2010 Lash deposited, Raipur 3,00,000/- 13.09.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 7,00,000/- 16.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 3,00,000/- 24.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 5,00,000/- 24.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 40,000/- 27.09.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 8,50,000/- 5 Sukhdev Singh v. ITO 28.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

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

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

section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.3,38,60,465/- is added back to the returned income of the assessee. I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S J P INDUSTRIES,JALABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - II, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147/148 because no proper satisfaction as prescribed u/s 151 was recorded by the Pr. CIT that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s 148. I.T.A

MEASAGE J.P. INDUSTRIES.,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147/148 because no proper satisfaction as prescribed u/s 151 was recorded by the Pr. CIT that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s 148. I.T.A

MESERS J.P INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147/148 because no proper satisfaction as prescribed u/s 151 was recorded by the Pr. CIT that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s 148. I.T.A