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

reassessment proceedings were based on belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment—Therefore, issuance of notice under s. 148 was not valid.” Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in VarshabenSanatabhia Patel vs. ITO (2016) 129 DTR 261(Guj) held that the AO, in reasons recorded for purpose of reopening

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reassessment on grounds other than those on the basis of which a notice was issued under s. 148 setting out the reasons for the belief that income had escaped assessment. Those judicial decisions had held that when the assessment was sought to be reopened

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5),, KATRA vs. SH. CHAIN SINGH, KATRA

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

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhryassessment Year:2010-11

reopening of the case independently and with corroborative material. Even the Assessing Officer has not made any exercise to gather any material evidence on record. The initiation of reassessment

SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act; sanction by PCIT under section 151 and non service of notice and thus, validity of reassessment

SHRI BALJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act; sanction by PCIT under section 151 and non service of notice and thus, validity of reassessment

SHRI IQBAL SHEIKH,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reopening the assessment in the case of assessee would entail the entire reassessment proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

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

Assessing Officer issued reopening notice against assessee merely on basis of information of Director (Investigation) that assessee had received share premium of huge amount during year which was not justifiable considering its lesser income during year, impugned reopening notice was unjustified. 4. 206 TTJ (Asr) 513 Karamjit Singh Rai vs ITO Reassessment

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

reopened the assessment wrongly presuming that cash deposited in Bank a/c amounting to Rs.48,35,500.00/- has escaped assessment. AO proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income. The reassessment

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

reopened the assessment wrongly presuming that cash deposited in Bank a/c amounting to Rs.48,35,500.00/- has escaped assessment. AO proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income. The reassessment

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

reopened the assessment wrongly presuming that cash deposited in Bank a/c amounting to Rs.48,35,500.00/- has escaped assessment. AO proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income. The reassessment

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

reassessment proceedings. His consequential steps of attempting to serve the notices of scrutiny assessment were of no consequence. Reopening of assessment

SH. JOGINDER SINGH S/O. SH. GURDIAL SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

reopening assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 was to expire on 31/03/2017. The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 148 of the Acton that date, therefore in respect of 2nd transaction dated 08/06/2009 the notice of reassessment

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

assessment is reopened for reassessment, it was open for the AO to examine any other aspect of assessment indicating under

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

reopening of the assessments are of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana u/s 150(1) of the Act and not of the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act. He contended that such reason are no reasons under the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, he prayed that the assessment order passed

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFD INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

reopening of the assessments are of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana u/s 150(1) of the Act and not of the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act. He contended that such reason are no reasons under the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, he prayed that the assessment order passed

SHRI ARUN NARULA ,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

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

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

reopening of the assessments are of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana u/s 150(1) of the Act and not of the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act. He contended that such reason are no reasons under the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, he prayed that the assessment order passed

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment is also an assessment as the assessment order is required to be passed under section 143(3) read with section 148 of the Act. 27. In the present case, the Total Receipt was Rs. 2,66,67,690/-for the assessment year 2007- 2008 and Excess of income over expenditure was Rs. 1,03,75,360/-, and the assessee

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

reopening of assessment. (i) Usha International Ltd, vs Assessee on 9 March, 2015 (ITAT delhi ) -As this tangible material, in the shape of audit objection, came into existence after the completion of the original assessment and led to the initiation of reassessment