SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed her return of income wherein, the “Income under head Salaries” was declared at Rs. 4,00,825/- and the total income was declared at Rs. 3,00,830/- after claiming the deduction

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

reassessment proceedings for bringing to tax items which had escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction

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

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

reassessment vide his order passed u/ss. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction

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

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

reassessment vide his order passed u/ss. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction

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

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

reassessment vide his order passed u/ss. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction

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

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

reassessment vide his order passed u/ss. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction

SH. WASEEM AHMED KHAYEEB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 556/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

deducting transfer & reversal entries in comparison of the net profit rate of 1.02% as declared by the assessee and the addition of Rs.6,050,00.00 as per reassessment

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR vs. SH. SUHAIL AHMED BHAT, PROP. M/S SHIFA TRADERS, RANGPARISTAN, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

deduction claimed u/s 10A/10B. At the time of the original assessment the Assessing Officer did not think of setting off the loss of the third unit with the other two units and therefore the reassessment

SHRI GURKHA SINGH ALIAS JOGINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD 1(1), BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.145/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment is liable to be quashed. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the indexed cost of acquisition of agricultural land in 2003-04 for Rs. 187300/- and its indexed cost for deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR, , CIVIL LINES vs. SH. BARJESH SINGHAL, MODERN COLONY

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

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

deduction under section Not and, therefore, its income had not been properly assessed. At this stage, the court can neither go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons recorded by respondent No. 2 nor can it interfere with the notice simply because on an overall reappraisal of material, a different opinion may be formed. (c) Reassessment

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 61 I.T.A. Nos. 513 to 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21 9 and (iv) even in the reply to SCN dated 29/03/2022, the claim of the assessee is restricted to sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) . 14. He further submitted that

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 61 I.T.A. Nos. 513 to 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21 9 and (iv) even in the reply to SCN dated 29/03/2022, the claim of the assessee is restricted to sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) . 14. He further submitted that

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 61 I.T.A. Nos. 513 to 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21 9 and (iv) even in the reply to SCN dated 29/03/2022, the claim of the assessee is restricted to sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) . 14. He further submitted that

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 61 I.T.A. Nos. 513 to 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21 9 and (iv) even in the reply to SCN dated 29/03/2022, the claim of the assessee is restricted to sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) . 14. He further submitted that

SHRIMATI AMARJIT KAUR W/O BUGAR SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings, if the twin conditions prescribed under section 147 of the Act are satisfied. c) Raymond Woolen Mills Limited. Vs ITO 236 ITR 34 SC In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there

AMBEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BATHINDA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfa7199K

reassess the income which has escaped assessment besides any other income chargeable to tax which would have escaped assessment and would come to my notice subsequently in the course of assessment proceedings under this section, within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 15. On a careful perusal of the above recording, we find force

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

Reassessment under sec 147(a)-Reason to believe-Must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of assessee. Whether the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the Court to investigate-Only the existence of belief can be challenged by assessee-Expression "reason to believe" does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction