D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]] or section 150

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]] or section 150

SH. JOGINDER SINGH S/O. SH. GURDIAL SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

150. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

150% of capital expenditure incurred on construction of godowns during the year. Deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act is available in respect of specified business of setting up and operating a warehousing facility for storage of agricultural produce. The assessee has set up a warehousing facility but has rented it out to PUNGRAIN on monthly fixed rental

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

150% of capital expenditure incurred on construction of godowns during the year. Deduction u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act is available in respect of specified business of setting up and operating a warehousing facility for storage of agricultural produce. The assessee has set up a warehousing facility but has rented it out to PUNGRAIN on monthly fixed rental

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

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

150 TTJ 640 (Agra), P.amballabh Gupta v. 4 Shish Pal Singh v. ITO ACIT & Ors. 288 ITR 347 (M.P.) and Cargo Clearing Agency Gujrat v. JCIT, 307 ITR 1 (Guj.) 5. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (in brevity Sr. DR) vehemently argued in this issue he mentioned that this particular issue of additional ground was never raised before

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) vide paras17, 22, 23 and 25 held as under: 17. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. In Sahara India (Firm) (supra), the Supreme Court explained as under: "8. There

SHRI MURLI MANOHAR,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

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

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

150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) vide paras17, 22, 23 and 25 held as under: 17. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. In Sahara India (Firm) (supra), the Supreme Court explained as under: "8. There

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) vide paras17, 22, 23 and 25 held as under: 17. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. In Sahara India (Firm) (supra), the Supreme Court explained as under: "8. There

SHRI MURLI MANOHAR,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

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

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

150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) vide paras17, 22, 23 and 25 held as under: 17. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. In Sahara India (Firm) (supra), the Supreme Court explained as under: "8. There

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) vide paras17, 22, 23 and 25 held as under: 17. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. In Sahara India (Firm) (supra), the Supreme Court explained as under: "8. There

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) vide paras17, 22, 23 and 25 held as under: 17. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. In Sahara India (Firm) (supra), the Supreme Court explained as under: "8. There

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) vide paras17, 22, 23 and 25 held as under: 17. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. In Sahara India (Firm) (supra), the Supreme Court explained as under: "8. There

SH. BALWINDER SINGH KOHLI,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

The appeals are disposed off in the manner discussed as above

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

150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) vide paras17, 22, 23 and 25 held as under: 17. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. In Sahara India (Firm) (supra), the Supreme Court explained as under: "8. There

SH. DARSHAN PAL SINGH GREWAL,LUDHIANA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

The appeals are disposed off in the manner discussed as above

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

150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) vide paras17, 22, 23 and 25 held as under: 17. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself. In Sahara India (Firm) (supra), the Supreme Court explained as under: "8. There

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

150/- against returned income of Rs 3,00,830/- declared in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s148 of the Act on 18.12.2018 after making addition of Rs. 1,75,322/ on account undisclosed interest on savings/deposits. The appellant’s case was reopened after recording reasons and obtaining necessary approval from Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

reassessment u/s 147 on the ground of AIR Information not being reflected in the return of Income, ignoring the clear position of the law that section 139(9) can only be used to rectify defects, if any in the return of income. 7. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI ARUN NARULA ,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

150(1) of the Act and not of the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act. He contended that such reason are no reasons under the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, he prayed that the assessment order passed by the AO on the basis of invalid reasons is without jurisdiction and hence 6 I.T.A