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 under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect

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 under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

reassessment" cannot be reduced beyond the income originally assessed. 5.3 In view of that matter, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of confirming the finding of the AO in not accepting the loss return claim on account of carry forward of losses by the assessee and hence, no interference is called

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR vs. K.M.V. COLLEGIATE SR. SEC. SCHOOL, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue Department under consideration stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita Nos.622 & 623(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12

reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147 of the IT Act are held to be invalid. Further, it is seen from the record that even on merits, the claim of exemption u/s 10(23 C)(vi) of the IT Act has been allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT to the appellant in its order dated

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR vs. K.M.V. COLLEGIATE SR. SEC. SCHOOL, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue Department under consideration stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita Nos.622 & 623(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12

reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147 of the IT Act are held to be invalid. Further, it is seen from the record that even on merits, the claim of exemption u/s 10(23 C)(vi) of the IT Act has been allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT to the appellant in its order dated

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

155 taxmann.com 507 DEL HC order dated 19.09.2023 iv. Jetair Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and others reported in [2023] 458 ITR 462 (Bom). v. Cliantha Research Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Ahmedabad reported in [2013] 35 taxman.com 254 (Delhi). 8. Regarding Ground No 5 the Ld AR submitted that in course of reassessment proceedings, even though manual return of income has been

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

reassessment proceedings provided he has reasons to believe but the same cannot be taken recourse to on the basis of reasons to suspect-ITO & Ors, vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) relied on". Therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of the "reason" recorded is vitiated. Thus, the reasons

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

reassessment proceedings provided he has reasons to believe but the same cannot be taken recourse to on the basis of reasons to suspect-ITO & Ors, vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) relied on". Therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of the "reason" recorded is vitiated. Thus, the reasons

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR, , CIVIL LINES vs. SH. BARJESH SINGHAL, MODERN COLONY

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

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

155 CTR 538 (SC)- "Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law" (ii) Usha International Ltd, vs Assessee

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

section 68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee-company acquired loans were indulged in bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during Investigation, Impugned addition made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were to be deleted