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. 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

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. 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

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. 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

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

SHRI GAURAV JOSHI,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD-1(5), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.274/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sh. Gaurav Joshi, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sh. Ashray Sarna, Adv., B- Ward-1(5), 18, Vakil Building, Model Jalandhar Town Road, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amjpj3603P Assessee By : Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2019

section 2(7A) of the Act. These reasons are, thus, struck down as void ab initio, null and void. Since the reasons to believe escapement of income themselves have been declared null and void, all proceedings in furtherance thereof, culminating in the impugned order are also void ab initio and are quashed as such.” So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred

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

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

159, ACIT vs Vidit Kumar Agarwal (2012) 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

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

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 , KAPUTHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, ITA

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

reassessment, in this case, was preceded by a regular assessment made earlier. 5. That the order under appeal is wholly against law and facts of the case.” 3. Brief fact is that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s P.K. & Company, Kapurthala was engaged in trading of paddy husk and also transportation of goods from the premises of Vendor

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