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

234 (1)SHAMSHER SINGH S/O SULAKHAN SINGH 674000.00 ARJINDER KAUR W/O MANOHAR SINGH 660000.00 224 226 BALWINDERJIT KAUR W/O GURBAKSH SINGH 577500.00 224 BEANT KAUR W/O BALDEV SINGH S/O DIWAN S 578500.00 BHUPINDER KAUR W/O HARDEV SINGH 535500.00 224 226 HARJINDER SINGH S/O JAGIR SINGH 556500.00 224 HARPAL KAUR W/O HARBHEJ SINGH 578000.00 INDERJIT KAUR W/O KANWALJIT SINGH

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

SHRI MADAL LAL,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153D starts with the words "No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed....". In other words, the language employed in the provision is couched in the negative and therefore, there is a prohibition against passing of an assessment or reassessment order, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. 10. In Shin-Etsu Chemical

SHRIMATI SUDHA AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

reassessment can only be made for six assessment years and this assessment year is the seventh assessment year P a g e | 2 ITA No. 525/Asr./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 Smt.Sudha Aggarwal Vs. ACIT for which no notice under section 153A can be issued which is mandatory for assessment under section 153A of the Act, due to which assessment becomes

SHRIMATI RITU KAPOOR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III(2), SRINAGAR

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

Section-148 was not served upon the appellant. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in justifying the issue issuance of the notice on the address as mentioned in the Sale Deed of the property, as business and residential address of the appellant was duly mentioned in the return filed as of 14-13 Rajbagh Srinagar

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

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

reassessment, alongwith other supporting evidence, vide reply dt.21.12.2018 (copy appended at pg.109-110). xii) As to the truth of cancelled TINs of 18 parties, it is factually incorrect. At least in respect of the parties whose VAT 23 is being filed herein above, it is false per se. Then the timing of this allegation is no where stated, which is important