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 re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

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 re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

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 re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

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 re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

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 re-computation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 1990.1" I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 22/Asr/2017 6 A.Ys.: 1984-85 to 1991-92 Accordingly, the assessment under section 147 was time barring only on 31.03.1997/31.03.1998 as notice u/s 148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

reassessment under s. 147. We also do not find anything in the context of s. 273 which would require the words 'regular assessment' to be given a meaning different from the one given by the legislature when these words were defined." 25. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by Chandurkar J. Moreover, there is another aspect to this case

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

reassessment under s. 147. We also do not find anything in the context of s. 273 which would require the words 'regular assessment' to be given a meaning different from the one given by the legislature when these words were defined." 25. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by Chandurkar J. Moreover, there is another aspect to this case

SHRIMATI. HARBHAJAN KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (20, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

129 Pg. 59 to 71 case laws. g) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Cebon India Ltd. High Court Of Punjab & Haryana (2010) 229 CTR (P&H) 188 : (2009) 184 Taxman 290 : (2010) 34 DTR 119 Pg. 72 to 74 case laws. 2. That affidavit to the effect that neither notice

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

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 dated 13/12/2013 135-140 stamp duty document no.A198507 along with English translation 24. Copy of sale deed

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings were based on belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment—Therefore, issuance of notice under s. 148 was not valid.” Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in VarshabenSanatabhia Patel vs. ITO (2016) 129 DTR 261(Guj) held that the AO, in reasons recorded for purpose of reopening assessment, placed reliance upon record of case—There

HARVINDER SINGH BULLAR,VPO RANJITGARH, MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 69A with consequential tax rates u/s 115BBE of the Act 61. 5. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, where elaborate written submissions were filed by the assessee along with supporting documentary evidence by way of an indexed paper-book consisting of 129 pages along with an application for admission of fresh evidence under

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

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

reassessment can take place without service of notice being affected on the assessee or his authorized representative. (iv). Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Ceban India Ltd. IT A No. 85 of 2009, Jul 7, 2009 has held that in absence of notice being served, the AO had no jurisdiction to make assessment. Ground

SH. KULDEEP SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 579/Asr/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

reassessment u/s 148 without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of service of notice u/s 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 within stipulated period as provided by law as well as reopening based on AIR information only and the Worthy CIT(A) has impliedly approved it without going through the facts of the case and adjudicate this ground of appeal without application

SHRIMATI. SAVITRI DEVI,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

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

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

129 & 146-IT/17-18, date of order 22.02.2019, the order passed u/s 250 (6)of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2010-11. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bathinda, (in brevity the AO), order passed u/s 143/147 of the Act date of order