SHRI RAVINDER SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

1) of section 153A. The proviso to section 153A further provides for assessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years). 20. In the instant case, the draft assessment order in 38 cases, i.e. Ravinder Singh v. Dy. CIT for 38 assessment years placed

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

1) of section 153A. The proviso to section 153A further provides for assessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years). 20. In the instant case, the draft assessment order in 38 cases, i.e. Ravinder Singh v. Dy. CIT for 38 assessment years placed

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

1) of section 153A. The proviso to section 153A further provides for assessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years). 20. In the instant case, the draft assessment order in 38 cases, i.e. Ravinder Singh v. Dy. CIT for 38 assessment years placed

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

1) of section 153A. The proviso to section 153A further provides for assessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years). 20. In the instant case, the draft assessment order in 38 cases, i.e. Ravinder Singh v. Dy. CIT for 38 assessment years placed

SHRI MURLI MANOHAR,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

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

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

D-602, Jalandhar Heights, Tax, Circle-2, Jalandhar 66 Road, Jalandhar [PAN: AASPM 1133E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 26.07.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: Both the captioned appeals have been filed by the assessees against the common order of the Ld. Commissioner

SHRI MURLI MANOHAR,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

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

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

D-602, Jalandhar Heights, Tax, Circle-2, Jalandhar 66 Road, Jalandhar [PAN: AASPM 1133E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 26.07.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: Both the captioned appeals have been filed by the assessees against the common order of the Ld. Commissioner

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings were initiated well after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The following observations as made in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. are required to be noted, which reads thus: "24. As per section 151 of the Act, the 'specified authority' who has to grant his sanction for the purposes of section

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings were initiated well after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The following observations as made in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. are required to be noted, which reads thus: "24. As per section 151 of the Act, the 'specified authority' who has to grant his sanction for the purposes of section

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

d) Gurera Gas Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 258 ITR 170 P&H A perusal of the reasons recorded by respondent No. 2 shows that he had applied his mind to the relevant material and formed a belief that the petitioner had not disclosed complete facts which could enable it to claim deduction under section 80-1 and, therefore

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

d-oiled,( cake) has been sold to customers and the sales are duly invoiced, recorded in regular books of accounts and has formed a part of the total turnover for the year under appeal. 5. As observed by the AO in the assessment order (page- 4 paragraph –14) the sellers of raw materials ( rice bran) Mr. Avinash Chander

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

reassessment complete is valid and the Appellants ground is dismissed. Issue on merits: I have gone through the submission made by the Appellant, the Appellant is an Association of Person which has been formed with the object of setting up and I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 1 operating warehousing facility for storage

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

reassessment complete is valid and the Appellants ground is dismissed. Issue on merits: I have gone through the submission made by the Appellant, the Appellant is an Association of Person which has been formed with the object of setting up and I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 1 operating warehousing facility for storage

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

reassessment, Assessing\nOfficer did not invoke section 68,\nhowever, Commissioner exercising his\nrevisionary power under section 263\nset aside assessment orders directing\nAssessing Officer to make fresh\nassessment after conducting detailed\nenquiry and upon satisfying on\ngenuneness of transaction - Whether\norder of Commissioner was not based\non irrelevant considerations and\nfurther in present circumstances, he\nwas not obliged to positively

KHURSHID AHMAD DAR,JAMMU AND KASHMIR, INDIA vs. ITO WARD, UDHAMPUR, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Blekhurshid Ahmad Dar Vs. Ito, Ward, Nully Poshwari Turkawangam, Udhampur Shopia, 192305, Jammu & Kashmir, India.Pin 192305. Pan No. Awmpd5664K Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp. Revenue By Mrs. Roshanta Kumari Meena, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025. Date Of Pronouncement To. [1 .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

reassessment notices under section 148 dated 31-3-2021, but same were dispatched on or after 1-4-2021 Assessee challenged validity of notices issued under section 148 - Whether function of generation of notice on ITBA portal and digital signing of notice is executed by Assessing Officer while function of drafting of e-mail to which notice is attached

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

D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-1 dated 25.03.2021 in respect of Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That

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

reassessment on the basis of audit objection is legally invalid in absence of any tangible material gathered post assessment , and all materials regarding expenses incurred were made available to the AO in original proceedings and are all existing in assessment records , on which due application of mind has been made by the AO , and the revenue audit

M/S. PUNJAB IRON & STEEL COMPANY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

1) it is categoric and clear that once a notice is issued and the Assessing Officer has required the assessee to furnish return for a period of six assessment years as contemplated under clause (b) then the assessee has to furnish all details with respect to each assessment year since the same is treated as a return filed under section

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

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

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

11 Assessment Year: 2014-15 6. The ld. AR placed that all the payments are received from the persons related to sale of land and the details of the relevant instruments are annexed before the bench in APB page 174 to 223. The ld. AR further argued that the property belongs to father of the assessee, Mr. Harjit Singh