M/S LORD MAHAVIR HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE & HOSPITAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

47,44,901/-. 2. There is no other issue in the present case, because the receipts and expenses have been accepted by the department and regarding the genuineness of activity and aims and objects, there is no whisper in the order of Assessing Officer and meaning thereby, that if there would have been registration u/s 12A, then the surplus

M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

47,44,901/-. 2. There is no other issue in the present case, because the receipts and expenses have been accepted by the department and regarding the genuineness of activity and aims and objects, there is no whisper in the order of Assessing Officer and meaning thereby, that if there would have been registration u/s 12A, then the surplus

LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPHATIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

47,44,901/-. 2. There is no other issue in the present case, because the receipts and expenses have been accepted by the department and regarding the genuineness of activity and aims and objects, there is no whisper in the order of Assessing Officer and meaning thereby, that if there would have been registration u/s 12A, then the surplus

JALALABAD SOLVEX PRIVATE LTD,JALALABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR-1, PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

reassessment of proceedings read with section assessment filed by 147 the assessee 8 I.T.A. No. 117/Asr/2024 Jalalabad Solvex Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT iv 08-12- Notice under The assessee has 2021 section 142(1) filed the required information in the Notice under section 142(1) issued on 08- 12- reply dated 2021 asking for the information:- 02/01/2022 and 28/02/2022

SHRIMATI AMARJIT KAUR W/O BUGAR SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

v. ITO particulars of the return without any new material. Even if proceedings under s. 143(2) are not taken, reassessment proceedings can be taken. h) Aditya and Co. Vs CIT 279 ITR 47 P&H In the case of an intimation under section

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

v. Union of India\nSection 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of\nrevenue (General Principles) - An order under section 263 was assailed on ground that\ncondition precedent of initiating a proceeding under section 263 was absent and, therefore,\nimpugned order was an order without jurisdiction Whether two conditions of order\nbeing erroneous

SHRI BALJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

2 nor can it interfere with the notice simply because on an overall reappraisal of material, a different opinion may be formed. e) Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO Under section 147 of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, wide power has been given

SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

2 nor can it interfere with the notice simply because on an overall reappraisal of material, a different opinion may be formed. e) Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO Under section 147 of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, wide power has been given

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

Section 143(2), per which the law provides for the said verification, and sec. 147, operate in different fields, even as explained in Vipan Khanna v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 220 (P&H). Be that as it may, there is equally no doubt that the AO had a valid reason to believe escapement from assessment qua rental income. The same

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR vs. DR SHYAM LAL THAPAR NURSING HOME, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

47 CCH 0197 (Ahd), is that as it has since been granted registration (i.e., on 20.01.2014 / copy on record), the assessment, setting aside the impugned order/s, be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the application of sections 11 and 12 of the Act in view of section 12A(2), which reads as under: ‘Conditions

M/S. SHYAM LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER_II,, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

47 CCH 0197 (Ahd), is that as it has since been granted registration (i.e., on 20.01.2014 / copy on record), the assessment, setting aside the impugned order/s, be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the application of sections 11 and 12 of the Act in view of section 12A(2), which reads as under: ‘Conditions

M/S SHYMA LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICERII, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

47 CCH 0197 (Ahd), is that as it has since been granted registration (i.e., on 20.01.2014 / copy on record), the assessment, setting aside the impugned order/s, be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the application of sections 11 and 12 of the Act in view of section 12A(2), which reads as under: ‘Conditions

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

section 263 of the Act. 2. Ground of Appeal: The Worthy Pr. CIT is not justified on facts as well as on law in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.12.2017. The assessment order has been passed by the ld. A.O. after conducting necessary enquiries and after application of mind

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

section 263 of the Act. 2. Ground of Appeal: The Worthy Pr. CIT is not justified on facts as well as on law in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.12.2017. The assessment order has been passed by the ld. A.O. after conducting necessary enquiries and after application of mind

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

2) on 12.11.2014 served upon the assessee on 5 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO 13.11.2014 fixing the case for hearing on 20.11.2014. The case of the appellant company was adjourned on different dates at the request of the ld. counsel for the assessee company during the course of assessment proceedings by granting adjournment

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1996 (217) ITR 597 (SC)] (1) Even reassessment is permissible even without any new material and on the basis of return .SEWAK RAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 236 CTR 462(P&H) 2010- No doubt, mere change of opinion by itself is not a 10 ground for reassessment as held in the judgments

M/S NICE TELECOM,MANSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

2) for the purpose of issue of notice u/s. 148(1), stated two reasons to believe escapement of income chargeable to tax, as under: (PB pg. 9) (a) The assessee had claimed deduction on account of expenditure on ‘mobile repairs’ and on ‘recovery account’ at Rs.1,58,675 and Rs.1,96,636/- respectively. The repair expenses incurred during the warranty

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

reassessment or recomputation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1),— (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative

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

47,11,318/- as against claimed by the assessee in respect of expenditure of Rs 77,65,67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income may, subject