M/S LORD MAHAVIR HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE & HOSPITAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

4. Since the assessee is engaged in the activity of imparting education since its establishment, it moved two applications, one on 08-10-1998 seeking recognition under section 80G of the Act and other on 25-05-1999 seeking registration under section 12A with effect from 01-04-1998. However, while granting recognition under section

M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

4. Since the assessee is engaged in the activity of imparting education since its establishment, it moved two applications, one on 08-10-1998 seeking recognition under section 80G of the Act and other on 25-05-1999 seeking registration under section 12A with effect from 01-04-1998. However, while granting recognition under section

LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPHATIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

4. Since the assessee is engaged in the activity of imparting education since its establishment, it moved two applications, one on 08-10-1998 seeking recognition under section 80G of the Act and other on 25-05-1999 seeking registration under section 12A with effect from 01-04-1998. However, while granting recognition under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR vs. DR SHYAM LAL THAPAR NURSING HOME, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment proceedings on the basis of non grant of registration (u/s. 12AA). As we understand, the whole purport of the provisos to s. 12A(2) is to mitigate the hardship, as far as possible, arising to an assessee, a charitable (or religious) trust or institution, on account of the delayed grant of registration u/s. 12AA, which is thus deemed

M/S SHYMA LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICERII, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment proceedings on the basis of non grant of registration (u/s. 12AA). As we understand, the whole purport of the provisos to s. 12A(2) is to mitigate the hardship, as far as possible, arising to an assessee, a charitable (or religious) trust or institution, on account of the delayed grant of registration u/s. 12AA, which is thus deemed

M/S. SHYAM LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER_II,, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment proceedings on the basis of non grant of registration (u/s. 12AA). As we understand, the whole purport of the provisos to s. 12A(2) is to mitigate the hardship, as far as possible, arising to an assessee, a charitable (or religious) trust or institution, on account of the delayed grant of registration u/s. 12AA, which is thus deemed

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

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

4). Mr. Awasthy has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this court in Seth Balkishan Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala (5). In that case the question referred to this court was : whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the service of the notice under section 34 on the assessee was invalid

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

reassessment proceedings under the provisions of section 149 of the Act." (p. 776) I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 20 Assessment Year: 2006-07 ITAT KOLKATA BENCH-C ITO vs. Sri Biswajit Chatterjee ITA No. 565/Kol/2013 dated 10.11.2017.The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below: - “11. Now the Revenue has agitated before us that Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving direction to reopen

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

11 of the Income TaxRule 1963 and respectfully following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 4. The ld. Sr. DR argued on behalf of the revenue and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that there

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

11 of the Income TaxRule 1963 and respectfully following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 4. The ld. Sr. DR argued on behalf of the revenue and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that there

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

11 of the Income TaxRule 1963 and respectfully following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 4. The ld. Sr. DR argued on behalf of the revenue and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that there

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

11 of the Income TaxRule 1963 and respectfully following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 4. The ld. Sr. DR argued on behalf of the revenue and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that there

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

11 of the Income TaxRule 1963 and respectfully following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 4. The ld. Sr. DR argued on behalf of the revenue and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that there

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

11 of the Income TaxRule 1963 and respectfully following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 4. The ld. Sr. DR argued on behalf of the revenue and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that there

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

11 of the Income TaxRule 1963 and respectfully following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 4. The ld. Sr. DR argued on behalf of the revenue and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that there

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

Reassessment) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company filed instant writ on ground that a notice dated 01- 06-2021 issued under section 148 and notice under section 148A(b) I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 11 Assessment Year: 2013-14 issued on 30-5-2022 in furtherance of notice dated 1-6-2021 and impugned order passed under section 148A(d) and notice

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

11 : (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) where it has categorically been held that in the light of objections filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer would pass a detailed order. 6.0 In consideration of discussion in paragraph 4 and 5 above, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are dismissed. 7.0 Ground of Appeal no. 6: This

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

11 : (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) where it has categorically been held that in the light of objections filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer would pass a detailed order. 6.0 In consideration of discussion in paragraph 4 and 5 above, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are dismissed. 7.0 Ground of Appeal no. 6: This

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

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 refused. Subsequently the official of the department was sent on 14 April 2016 for service of notice which was received