SH. SURINDER SINGH LEGAL HEIR. OF SMT SITA DEVI,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

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

159 of the Act, where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. The death of a person who is liable to pay tax under the Act would

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

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

159 of the Act, where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. The death of a person Puran Singh v. Pr. CIT who is liable

SHRI PURAN SINGH ,SHAHKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

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

159 of the Act, where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. The death of a person Puran Singh v. Pr. CIT who is liable

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

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

159 of the Act, where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. The death of a person Puran Singh v. Pr. CIT who is liable

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRJAL), LUDHIANA

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

159 of the Act, where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. The death of a person Puran Singh v. Pr. CIT who is liable

SHRI PURAN SINGH ,SHAHKOT vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER AOF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

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

159 of the Act, where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. The death of a person Puran Singh v. Pr. CIT who is liable

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

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

159 of the Act, where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. The death of a person Puran Singh v. Pr. CIT who is liable

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , LUDHIANA

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

159 of the Act, where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. The death of a person Puran Singh v. Pr. CIT who is liable

SMT. ANURADHA MAHAJAN,,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

reassessment proceedings were started in 1991. At that time army had converted into cantonment with military oriented constructions. Kindly refer to page 4, last para of CIT (A) in case of Dhanwanti Devi which refers to statement of Patwari Sh. Mohammad Nawaz. So this report is not contextual to 1949 when the Army requisitioned the lands. Page

SH. SUNIL GUPTA,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

reassessment proceedings were started in 1991. At that time army had converted into cantonment with military oriented constructions. Kindly refer to page 4, last para of CIT (A) in case of Dhanwanti Devi which refers to statement of Patwari Sh. Mohammad Nawaz. So this report is not contextual to 1949 when the Army requisitioned the lands. Page

SMT. DHANWANTI DEVI (DECEASED),JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

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

reassessment proceedings were started in 1991. At that time army had converted into cantonment with military oriented constructions. Kindly refer to page 4, last para of CIT (A) in case of Dhanwanti Devi which refers to statement of Patwari Sh. Mohammad Nawaz. So this report is not contextual to 1949 when the Army requisitioned the lands. Page

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

159 taxmann.com178(Bombay) where the Hon’ble court has held as follows: “1. Petitioner is impugning an order under Section 148A(d) and the notice, both dated 7th April, 2022 passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Of-course Petitioner has also Impugned the notice dated 17th March, 2022 issued under Section 148A

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

159 taxmann.com178(Bombay) where the Hon’ble court has held as follows: “1. Petitioner is impugning an order under Section 148A(d) and the notice, both dated 7th April, 2022 passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Of-course Petitioner has also Impugned the notice dated 17th March, 2022 issued under Section 148A

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

159 taxmann.com 649 (Bombay)/[2024] 298 Taxman 33 (Bombay) [31-01-2024] INCOME TAX: Where Assessing Officer made an addition on account of bogus purchases solely on a statement made by only one party recorded under section 131 without adducing evidence of other necessary parties. Tribunal was justified in deleting impugned addition Section 69C of the Income

SMT. BHARTI SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

section 147 of the act. Since, no addition made on the ground of reasons recorded, hence, the additions would not sustain.In support, he placed reliance on the judgement of the coordinate Amritsar Bench in the case of Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer in ITA No.274 ASR 2018 order dated Jan.16, 2019; [2019] 174 DTR 0353(Asr)Trib) where

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

section 147 of the act. Since, no addition made on the ground of reasons recorded, hence, the additions would not sustain.In support, he placed reliance on the judgement of the coordinate Amritsar Bench in the case of Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer in ITA No.274 ASR 2018 order dated Jan.16, 2019; [2019] 174 DTR 0353(Asr)Trib) where

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

section 147 of the act. Since, no addition made on the ground of reasons recorded, hence, the additions would not sustain.In support, he placed reliance on the judgement of the coordinate Amritsar Bench in the case of Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer in ITA No.274 ASR 2018 order dated Jan.16, 2019; [2019] 174 DTR 0353(Asr)Trib) where

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

Section 133A of the Act can be retracted at the whim and fancy of the assessee. In the light of the aforesaid, the assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.” The learned DR prayed that either the assessment order be restored or the matter may be remanded back to the CIT appeal for fresh adjudication