ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI CHUNI LAL, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment proceedings in respect of Assessment Years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 has not been substantiated with corroborative documentary evidences by referring to a particular document forming the basis for the income considered by the ld. CIT(A), being subject to double addition and as against the principal of double taxation. In our view, the ld. CIT(A)’s finding

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI HARMESH KUMAR, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment proceedings in respect of Assessment Years: 2008-09 and 2009-10 has not been substantiated with corroborative documentary evidences by referring to a particular document forming the basis for the income considered by the ld. CIT(A), being subject to double addition and as against the principal of double taxation. In our view, the ld. CIT(A)’s finding

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

reassessment are held to be devoid of any merits and substance and therefore, same are as such rejected. 12. In ground no. 3 & 4, the assessee has challenged approval granted by the CIT u/s 151 for issuing notice u/s 147 as bad in law. This issue of approval granted u/s 151 of the Income

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 143(1), Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment proceedings subsequently on basis of information supplied by Investigation wing of department that assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties. 6 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (ii) Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021] 131

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-1,, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-1,, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

M/S CGA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

M/S CGA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-1,, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-1,, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

MANDEEP SINGH S/O SH. NARINDER SINGH VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TARMALA MALOUT DISTRICT MUKTSAR,MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5) MUKTSAR JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

131 of the Act, by the DDIT, Investigation, Bathinda where the assessee has denied the opening of any bank account with OBC , and has stated that the bank account ( being A/c No xxxx 002070 with OBC ) , which is the subject matter of dispute in the instant case , has been fraudulently opened by Mr Amit Doda ( Prop M/s Gagan Wines

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXQ, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

131 would not automatically bind upon the assessee.This issue had been considered in the case of CIT, Salem v. M/s.S.Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR (SC) 228 : (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) wherein the Bench stated that the word “may” used in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., “record the statement