INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

reassessment proceeding due to the absence of any purchase agreements and details of transportation in respect of the said purchases and as such the same has remained unexplained and addition has been made of the entire amount of purchase totaling Rs.6,43,54,912/-, u/s 69C of the Act to the total income of the assessee as bogus purchase

SHRI SHISH PAL SINGH,JALANHDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4) JALANDHAR

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

131 by the ld ITO. The ld. counsel argued that reopening was made on depending the documents which is not belong to assessee. 12.1. During argument the ld. counsel had placed three judgments which are as follows:- i) Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur [2008] 168 Taxman 39 (Punjab & Haryana):- “4. Section 147 of the Act defines

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

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

SHRI HARJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

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

131(1) of the Act, and directed him to produce a copy of the sale/purchase deeds a/w copy of his bank accounts for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. In compliance, Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) though appeared before the A.O, however, in his statement recorded on oath he did not even recognize the assessee, and categorically stated that he had neither

SOM RAJ,PATHANKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATHANKOT

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

131 or u/s 133(6) of the Act; (ii). that the reasons on the basis of which the case of ITA No. 628/Asr/2016 – A.Y 2010-11 4 Som Raj. Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pathankot the assessee was reopened does not bear any nexus with the material available on record; (iii). that the AO prior to reopening of the case

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

131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Sh. Rajesh Mittal, Prop M/s Kamna Overseas had admitted in his statement (Q. No: 14 of his statement) that he had not entered into any sale/purchase from M/s Bhai Industries Pvt Ltd. Further, M/s Kamna Overseas/Enterprises has admitted to provide accommodation entries to various parties. The expenditure booked by the assessee company

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 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

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

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. RAJNI 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