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

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) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. ” b) A.L.A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) 13

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

3(1) of TOLA, it was extended till 30-6-2021 and, thus, notice dated 1-6-2021 was issued twenty-nine days prior to expiry of period of limitation for issuing a notice under section 148 as was extended by TOLA - It was further noted that period from 1-6-2021 and date of decision of Supreme Court

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.:

3 years, revenue, with a view to avail limitation prescribed under unamended section 149, generated 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

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

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. Copy of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act and for obtaining the approval of the JCIT

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

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. Copy of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act and for obtaining the approval of the JCIT

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 40A(3) and the same is as per reflection in cash book where names of different individuals are clearly mentioned in respect of each payment and there is nothing to disbelieve the said entries in regular books. “23. Further, regarding difference between credit balance of unsecured loan party namely M/s Ramesh Kumar and Co. in the books of that

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

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

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

3) the appellant department while framing assessment u/s147. The reliance is being placed upon the following case law along with other case laws enclosed separately [2010] 187 Taxman 312 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income- tax, Delhi v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.] [refer Page 1-3 of case law paper book] II. BORROWED SATISFCATION. Since there was no material

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

13,86,384/- as per the working given below: -\nValue of Excess Stock\nTax as per section 115BBE [1777416*60%*1.25*1.04]\nTax paid by the appellant on income of Rs. 50L surrendered in return of income [50L*30%*1.04]\nTax Payable\n17,77,416/-\n13,86,384/-\n15,60,000/-\nNIL\n22.\nThat before invoking the provisions of section

SHRI MADAL LAL,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

3. Assessee is challenging the validity of the assessment order and of the alleged approval given under Section 153D and the procedure adopted by the revenue authorities while granting mandatory approval under section 153D of the Act before passing the assessment order. It is the case of Assessee that approval by Add CIT under Section 153D is not a mere

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

3. The short issue is with regard to the deemed registration of an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The High Court has taken the view that once an application is made under the said provision and in case the same is not responded to within six months, it would be taken that the application is registered

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

3. The short issue is with regard to the deemed registration of an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The High Court has taken the view that once an application is made under the said provision and in case the same is not responded to within six months, it would be taken that the application is registered

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

3. The short issue is with regard to the deemed registration of an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The High Court has taken the view that once an application is made under the said provision and in case the same is not responded to within six months, it would be taken that the application is registered

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

3,14,00,000/- and upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 2,39,00,000/-. It is therefore requested that considering the facts of the case addition made by the Ld. A.O upheld by the worthy CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 5.1 The ld. AR argued that the approval U/s 153D was executed in mechanical manner. In evidence

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

3,14,00,000/- and upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 2,39,00,000/-. It is therefore requested that considering the facts of the case addition made by the Ld. A.O upheld by the worthy CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 5.1 The ld. AR argued that the approval U/s 153D was executed in mechanical manner. In evidence

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

3,14,00,000/- and upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 2,39,00,000/-. It is therefore requested that considering the facts of the case addition made by the Ld. A.O upheld by the worthy CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 5.1 The ld. AR argued that the approval U/s 153D was executed in mechanical manner. In evidence