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