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

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following judgments: • CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma as reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del, HC) “In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusive finding that, though

SHRI SUKHJINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. PRINICPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment is not permissible. Accordingly, after issue of certificate in respect of tax in dispute revision u/s 263 is not permissible

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

revision u/s 263. 5. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by not declaring reassessment

JALALABAD SOLVEX PRIVATE LTD,JALALABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR-1, PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

263 of the Act’61 , on the ground that the proper investigation and enquiry has not been made 5 I.T.A. No. 117/Asr/2024 Jalalabad Solvex Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT by the Assessing Officer, which has resulted in the order passed being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The relevant portion of the shows cause notice is reproduced

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

revision proceedings u/s. 263 the ld. PCIT found that there was no investigation in assessment related to issues involved in case of assessee which are as follows:- i. Stock declared in bank amount of Rs. 29.9 crores and value of stock as per books of accounts at Rs. 22.7 crores. There was no investigation by the ld. AO about

GURMAIL DASS SIDDHAR (DECEASED) THRU LH NIRANJAN KAUR(WIDOW),HOSHIARPUR vs. ITO W-1 , HOSHIARPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 352/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gurmail Dass Siddhar Vs. Ito, Ward- 1, (Deceased) Through L/H Smt. Hoshiarpur. Niranjan Kaur, Widow Garshankar, Ward No. 2 Near Banga Road Octroi, Garshankar, Hoshiarpur. [Pan:-Bwzps4561C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None (Adjournment Application) Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement

revision before the jurisdictional PCIT, Jalandhar and vide 263 order dated 23.01.2019 assessment was set aside back to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication in compliance to the 263 order. 4.2 However, said order u/s 263 dated 23.01.2019 was appealed against before the Hon’ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench, and the tribunal vide order dated 13.05.2022 in I.T.A

M/S TORRENT ROOFING SYSTEM,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

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

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

Reassessment made by the Assessing officer U/s 143 (3) read with section 263 of Income Tax Act and confirmed by CIT (A) is bad in law, especially when there is no new material available with the Assessing officer and all the facts were duly verified by the Assessing officer while framing the assessment and same was brought to the knowledge

SHRI SUCHHA SINGH THROUGH L/R RANJIT SINGH,KAPUTHALLA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm

revision u/s 263 wherein it was alleged that no plausible explanation was furnished by the assessee on the investment so made in the immovable property. The assessment was framed out without carrying out necessary verification and accordingly, the assessee was show- caused. The assessee opposed the same, inter-alia, on the ground that the reassessment

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

reassessment order dated 20.12.2018, being invalid for wrongful assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148, was not capable of revision u/s 263

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

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

u/s 151 of the Act. During hearing before he ld. PCIT, the ld. AR submitted the following details which are enclosed in APB page 1 to 16. The relevant paragraph of assessee’s submission is extracted as below: 13. Now coming to the issues raised in the SCN as regards the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,97,93,175/- from

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

revision, in disguise and seek relief or claim relief in respect of items not claimed in the original assessment proceedings, unless relatable to "escaped income" and re-agitate the concluded matters. Even in cases where the claims of the assessee during the course of re-assessment proceedings relating to the escaped assessment are accepted, still the allowance of such claims