NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

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

reassessment , has been based on this single statement of the seller , without any other documentary evidences being brought on record, to disprove the voluminous documentary evidences placed on record by the assessee, natural justice

M/S. RAJ DEV ,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

Natural Justice?. 4. Whether the Ld. AO has erred in not considering the copies of accounts of agriculturists duly submitted during the course of proceedings? 5. Whether the Appellant craves leaves to add, amend and alter the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off? 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant

BASHIR AHMAD SOFI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse in I

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

reassessment or re-computation” In this instant case, Onus is not on the assessee to inform the department regarding his address as the Assessing Officer clearly has the knowledge of the appellant’s actual address vis a vis Bank Statements. Further, it is settled law that it is the duty of the revenue to establish that the service

SHRI BASHIR AHMAD SOFI,NOWHATTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse in I

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

reassessment or re-computation” In this instant case, Onus is not on the assessee to inform the department regarding his address as the Assessing Officer clearly has the knowledge of the appellant’s actual address vis a vis Bank Statements. Further, it is settled law that it is the duty of the revenue to establish that the service

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

reassessment), passed on the same date on which the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) r/w s. 274 was issued for initiating the proceedings for imposing the penalty. The requirement of section 274 of granting reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, it explained, could not be stretched to the extent of framing a specific charge. As explained earlier

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

natural justice the additional evidence furnished by the assessee are admitted. 12. As regards to the validity of the reassessment

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

natural justice the additional evidence furnished by the assessee are admitted. 12. As regards to the validity of the reassessment

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

natural justice. The ld.CIT(A), not only erred in not holding the impugned order bad on this score, but also committed a grave legal error to shift the onus on assessee to produce the said person. 5.That when neither the stock tally, nor the sales made were disputed, holding the purchases bogus was prime facie uncalled for, which the ld.CIT

M/S HOLY FAITH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.181/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Holy Faith International Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Mbd House, Central Circle-Ii, Railway Road, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach6111J Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jalandhar. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Worthy Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-1, Jalandhar Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Contention Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Case U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act And, Thus, Framing Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S.143(3)/153C At An Income Of Rs. 4,95,13,441/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 4,63,33,441/-. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering That There Was No Reason To Believe That The Income Of The

justice. It was further submitted as under: “(i) The Ld. AO has applied his mind while framing the original assessment order u/s 153C and no discrepancy with regard to the unsecured loan was noticed. (ii) Reasons recorded by the Ld. AO is merely based on the information received from the investigation wing of the department without any independent application

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

justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.15,40,998/- u/s 68 of the Act without considering the facets of Section 68 of the Act and without considering the facts that

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

justice. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.15,40,998/- u/s 68 of the Act without considering the facets of Section 68 of the Act and without considering the facts that

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

natural justices specially when all other required information ie. details of project including location and scope of work, copies of the work allocation order from the Govt department was submitted. 4.2 This is misstated facts that the assessee company has not provided the detail of work performed whereas the information called for u/s 133(6) was duly furnished vide letter

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

natural justices specially when all other required information ie. details of project including location and scope of work, copies of the work allocation order from the Govt department was submitted. 4.2 This is misstated facts that the assessee company has not provided the detail of work performed whereas the information called for u/s 133(6) was duly furnished vide letter

SHRI KULDIP SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

natural justice, an opportunity letter was issued to the assessee on 02.03.2021 fixing the case for hearing on 16.03.2021. This notice was also sent through Speed post as well as through ITBA system. In response to this notice, the assessee filed reply online. The reply and details filed by the assessee needs further verifications. The case is, therefore, set aside

SMT. NIRMAL KAUR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 700/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

natural justice, or the procedure laid in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra), is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. The ‘objection’ by the assessee cannot, in fact, be said to be an objection, much less one contemplated per the said decision. The assessee fails on her Gd. 4. 4. The other legal objection

RAJESH KARYANA STORE,MUNICIPAL BAZAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PATHANKOT, PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2021 is unsigned and therefore invalid. 2) That CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, the notice issued under section 148A(b) is illegal, void and liable to be quashed

SHRI AMARDEEP SINGH SARKARIA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD-2(1), AMRITSAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meenaita No. 174/(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment against the assessee. Principal of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of section 148 ought to have been followed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

natural justice, therefore, needs to be quashed. 16. Even otherwise, it is submitted, Books of accounts of the assessee have been not rejected by the AO and the findings have been given by the CIT(A) at para 6.5 at page 36 of the order of CIT(A) and, reliance is being placed on judgments of different courts