SHRI RAJIV KUMAR KHANNA ,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the appellant assessee stands dismissed as not pressed

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

reassessment proceedings vide order dated 28.11.2016, passed under section 143(3)/147, at an Income of Rs.1,97,95,920 (1,63,62,420 + 34,33,500) and Rs.63,000 as agricultural income, after making various additions, as detailed below: - Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 34,33,500 Deemed Income u/s 69A Rs.1,53,14,125

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

125 to 132 V. Judgment in the case of Mohd. Yousuf Wani vs. Ito in ITA no. 372/Asr/2009 (Amritsar ITAT). The copy of the judgment is placed in judgment set pages 141 to 152 VI. Judgment in the case of Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal vs. DCIT in ITA no. 547/Asr/2011 (Amritsar ITAT). The copy of the judgment is placed in judgment

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

125-128 stamp duty document no.A144443 21. Copy of sale deed in the name of Harjit Singh dated 24/06/2013 129-132 stamp duty document no.A144282 22. Copy of agreement to sell executed between Harjit Singh and 133-134 Satnam Singh dated 17/10/13 I.T.A. No.22/Asr/2023 8 Assessment Year: 2014-15 23. Copy of sale deed in the name of Harjit Singh

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

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

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act after taking mandatory approval of the Ld. PCIT in respect of all the assessment Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors years by valid service of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act, on 14/02/2017, upon the assessees. 5.1 In the case of both appellants

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

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

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

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act after taking mandatory approval of the Ld. PCIT in respect of all the assessment Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors years by valid service of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act, on 14/02/2017, upon the assessees. 5.1 In the case of both appellants

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

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

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

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act after taking mandatory approval of the Ld. PCIT in respect of all the assessment Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors years by valid service of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act, on 14/02/2017, upon the assessees. 5.1 In the case of both appellants

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

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

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

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act after taking mandatory approval of the Ld. PCIT in respect of all the assessment Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors years by valid service of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act, on 14/02/2017, upon the assessees. 5.1 In the case of both appellants

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

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

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act after taking mandatory approval of the Ld. PCIT in respect of all the assessment Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors years by valid service of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act, on 14/02/2017, upon the assessees. 5.1 In the case of both appellants

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

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

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act after taking mandatory approval of the Ld. PCIT in respect of all the assessment Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors years by valid service of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act, on 14/02/2017, upon the assessees. 5.1 In the case of both appellants

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

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

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

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act after taking mandatory approval of the Ld. PCIT in respect of all the assessment Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors years by valid service of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act, on 14/02/2017, upon the assessees. 5.1 In the case of both appellants

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

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

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

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act after taking mandatory approval of the Ld. PCIT in respect of all the assessment Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors years by valid service of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act, on 14/02/2017, upon the assessees. 5.1 In the case of both appellants

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

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

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

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act after taking mandatory approval of the Ld. PCIT in respect of all the assessment Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors years by valid service of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act, on 14/02/2017, upon the assessees. 5.1 In the case of both appellants

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

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

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

reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act after taking mandatory approval of the Ld. PCIT in respect of all the assessment Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors years by valid service of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act, on 14/02/2017, upon the assessees. 5.1 In the case of both appellants

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

section 55(2)(b) and 55A of Income Tax Act, respectively before calculating the Capital Gain and order of A.O require to be set-a-side. 10. That the Id.CIT(A) has erred in law, as well as ,on facts by holding the land in question as individual land by ignoring land revenue record and further ignored that neither such

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

125 Taxman 963 that on receipt of objection given by assessee to notice under section 148, Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of objections by passing a speaking order, would not make reassessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

M/S HOLY FAITH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.181/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Holy Faith International Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Mbd House, Central Circle-Ii, Railway Road, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach6111J Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jalandhar. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Worthy Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-1, Jalandhar Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Contention Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Case U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act And, Thus, Framing Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S.143(3)/153C At An Income Of Rs. 4,95,13,441/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 4,63,33,441/-. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering That There Was No Reason To Believe That The Income Of The

125 ITR 713. 8. That the addition as made by the Assessing Officer has been withheld/confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) against the facts and circumstances of the case and submission filed during the course of assessment proceedings before the ITA No. 181/Asr./2017 3 Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer and during the course of Appellate proceedings have