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

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

3. return for the year 2014-15 on 31.03.2015 , declaring a total income of Rs.80,270/-, ( which included income from house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10

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

3. return for the year 2014-15 on 31.03.2015 , declaring a total income of Rs.80,270/-, ( which included income from house property at Rs.75,600/-, short term capital loss at (Rs.30,618/-), income from bank interest at Rs.17,667/- and LTCG (long term capital gains) amounting to Rs.2,02, 30,196/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

10 (38) was based on a proposal given by Assessing Officer, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee] 27. The Ld AR further argued on applicability of clause(a) of explanation 2 to section 263 and relied upon the Judgment of Sh. Narayan TatuRane Vs. ITO, I.T.A

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

3 are inter linked to each other wherein the appellant challenged validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The facts of the case as per record are that in the reassessment proceedings, the statutory notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 22 March 2016 which was received back with postal comments

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

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

3 of the assessee’s paper book wherein JCIT, Range-1, Bathinda gave the approval to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act. It was submitted that in the said approval the Ld. JCIT, Range-1, Bathinda simply mentioned that this is a “fit case to issue notice under section 148 of the Act” and no satisfaction

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

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

3 of the assessee’s paper book wherein JCIT, Range-1, Bathinda gave the approval to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act. It was submitted that in the said approval the Ld. JCIT, Range-1, Bathinda simply mentioned that this is a “fit case to issue notice under section 148 of the Act” and no satisfaction

SAINIK CO OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal issue as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14

10 Assessment Year: 2013-14 [2025] 175 taxmann.com 256 (Delhi)HIGH COURT OF DELHI Samajwadi Party v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Exemption : Section 148, read with section 149, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for (Period of limitation) - Assessment year 2014-15 – Assessee filed instant petition impugning reassessment notice issued under section

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

section 147 of the act. Thus, ground numbers 3, 5 and 6 of the appellant assessee are rejected. 12. In ground No. 7 to 10 the appellant challenged that the amount deposited was out of sale proceeds of Agricultural land of HUF and the AO has committed an error in reopening the case of individuals/appellant and hence the 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

section 147 of the act. Thus, ground numbers 3, 5 and 6 of the appellant assessee are rejected. 12. In ground No. 7 to 10 the appellant challenged that the amount deposited was out of sale proceeds of Agricultural land of HUF and the AO has committed an error in reopening the case of individuals/appellant and hence the reassessment

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Reassessment - Notice of (Recording of reasons)-Assessment year 2006-07 Where despite repeated letters requesting to provide copy of reasons recorded or grounds on which assessment was reopened, no such reasons were provided to assessee, reassessment completed by Assessing Officer could not be sustained. Accordingly, since the case of the assessee

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

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

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:” 5.1 We thoughtfully considered that the submission of the ld. counsel to section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

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

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:” 5.1 We thoughtfully considered that the submission of the ld. counsel to section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

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

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:” 5.1 We thoughtfully considered that the submission of the ld. counsel to section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

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

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:” 5.1 We thoughtfully considered that the submission of the ld. counsel to section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

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

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:” 5.1 We thoughtfully considered that the submission of the ld. counsel to section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

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

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:” 5.1 We thoughtfully considered that the submission of the ld. counsel to section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

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

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:” 5.1 We thoughtfully considered that the submission of the ld. counsel to section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA