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

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

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 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. 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

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. 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 CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 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

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

DY. 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. 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. 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, 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, 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