SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

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

reassessment proceedings, if the twin conditions prescribed under section 147 of the Act are satisfied. The grounds of appeal are dismissed. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and also moved an application for admission of additional evidences stating therein as under: Sub: Assessment Year

SHRI KASHMIR SINGH S/O SHRI SHINGARA SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), AMRITSAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

197 (Guj). Also, a similar view had earlier been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Leela, ITA No. 107 and 109 of 2006, dated 09/10/2006. In its aforesaid order, it was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that second reassessment proceedings could not be initiated while the first

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

197 : (2010) 40 DTR 129 Pg. 59 to 71 case laws. g) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Cebon India Ltd. High Court Of Punjab & Haryana (2010) 229 CTR (P&H) 188 : (2009) 184 Taxman 290 : (2010) 34 DTR 119 Pg. 72 to 74 case laws. 2. That affidavit to the effect that neither notice

SH. JASBIR SINGH S/O TEK CHAND,,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 600/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 143(3) read with sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30.11.2010 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08. 2. The appeal being time-barred, the first issue is if the delay could be condoned, and the appeal admitted. The delay is explained as on account of non- receipt of the appellate order

SMT..ANURADHA,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), PATHANKOT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

197(Asr), (iv) Smt Monika Rani as reported in ITA No. 582/Chd/ 2019 (ITAT Chandigarh), (v) DCIT vs Kissan Fats Ltd ITA NO 407/Chd/2023 (Chandigarh). 15. Moreover, in the instant case the approval granting authority has issued the approval on incorrect factual figure of Rs. 47.77 lakhs, when the actual figures are easily discernible from the bank statement

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

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

reassessment under s. 147. We also do not find anything in the context of s. 273 which would require the words 'regular assessment' to be given a meaning different from the one given by the legislature when these words were defined." 25. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by Chandurkar J. Moreover, there is another aspect to this case

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

reassessment under s. 147. We also do not find anything in the context of s. 273 which would require the words 'regular assessment' to be given a meaning different from the one given by the legislature when these words were defined." 25. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by Chandurkar J. Moreover, there is another aspect to this case

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

KUNDAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHI CHOWK, SADAR BAZAR, MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

reassessment proceedings (albeit on the wrong assessee). 9 I.T.A. No. 284/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 14. Referring to the above documentary evidences brought on record, the ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO in the case of the assessee out of inadvertent error where the AO has mistakenly assumed that there was only one company

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR vs. SH. SUHAIL AHMED BHAT, PROP. M/S SHIFA TRADERS, RANGPARISTAN, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.136(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

197 (SC): c. ITO vs. Sarabhai M. Lakhani [2000] 243 ITR 01 (SC): d. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC): 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu was right in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash deposits made by the AO as the relief