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 for relevant year by recording reason that information so received needed to be examined and creditworthiness of assessee had to be proved beyond doubt to accept claim of its director that money seized infact belonged to assessee- company - Whether since 'reason to believe' recorded by Assessing Officer did not refer to any material that came to his knowledge

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

3 ITA No. 548 (Asr)/2016 (AY 2009-10) Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. Asst. CIT ‘Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271. (1)………. (1B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains

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 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) (iii) Priya Blue Industries [2021] 130 taxmann.com 492 (Gujarat

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

145 & 146 of 2016-17 filed against penalty orders dated 29.10.2016 passed u/s 271D & 271E in lieu of the order dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT(A), Bathinda. 3. In support the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of “M/s Srimaan Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v. ITO Ward 3

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

145 & 146 of 2016-17 filed against penalty orders dated 29.10.2016 passed u/s 271D & 271E in lieu of the order dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT(A), Bathinda. 3. In support the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of “M/s Srimaan Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v. ITO Ward 3

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

AMBEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BATHINDA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfa7199K

145(3), on the gross receipts while adjudicating the alternative grounds of appeal ITA No. 121/Asr./2017 3 Ambey Construction Company of the assessee. The explanation furnished during the course of assessment proceedings has not been considered properly. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed

MAJOR SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

3) of s. 143, s. 144 and s. 145 shall, ‘so far as may be’, apply. This, therefore, made the provision of s. 143(2) applicable to an assessment u/s. 158BC. The Apex Court noted that the assessee may not file the return, or may not, after doing so, comply with the notice u/s. 143(2)/142, stating that

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

145(3) and, the AO raised no doubt, about the sales and closing stock nor any defect have been pointed out in day to day maintenance of books of accounts, in quantitative details and no enquiry have been made by the AO from the ‘Toll Barriers’ and, as such, the whole basis for making the addition on, merits was surmises

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

145. In the affidavit given by the father of the assessee, the gifts given by him from his sources in India were also inadvertently included. An affidavit mentioning the gifts given from sources in India totaling Rs. 86,41,000 is enclosed at page no. 147. It is prayed that this affidavit which was not filed earlier may please

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

145. In the affidavit given by the father of the assessee, the gifts given by him from his sources in India were also inadvertently included. An affidavit mentioning the gifts given from sources in India totaling Rs. 86,41,000 is enclosed at page no. 147. It is prayed that this affidavit which was not filed earlier may please

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

145. In the affidavit given by the father of the assessee, the gifts given by him from his sources in India were also inadvertently included. An affidavit mentioning the gifts given from sources in India totaling Rs. 86,41,000 is enclosed at page no. 147. It is prayed that this affidavit which was not filed earlier may please

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

145 : (2009) 178 Taxman 315 Pg. 46 to 48 case laws. d) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. MintuKalita High Court Of Gauhati (2001) 170 CTR (Gau) 149: (2002) 253 ITR 334 (Gau) : (2001) 117 Taxman 388 (Gau) Pg. 49 to 52 case laws. Harbhajan Kaur v. ITO e) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Bharti & Vijay Kumar Goel High

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 GURCHARAN SINGH ,GARSHANKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3 of the recorded reasons. The ld. AO added back the total amount of Rs.6,38,088/- in the assessment order. But the in recorded reason amount of escapement is mentioned Rs 7lac. So, the observation of the ld.AO was not proper as per the counsel. 6. The Departmental Representative of Revenue (in brevity DR) argued vehemently in favour