SHRI PURAN SINGH ,SHAHKOT vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER AOF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

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

7 appeals in respect of the Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2013-14 are 3 years old and the where about of either of the diseased appellant or its Legal heirs are not available on record, it is decided to dispose the appeals as per law on hearing the Ld. DR. 3. The Ld. DR explained that there

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , LUDHIANA

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

7 appeals in respect of the Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2013-14 are 3 years old and the where about of either of the diseased appellant or its Legal heirs are not available on record, it is decided to dispose the appeals as per law on hearing the Ld. DR. 3. The Ld. DR explained that there

SHRI PURAN SINGH ,SHAHKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

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

7 appeals in respect of the Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2013-14 are 3 years old and the where about of either of the diseased appellant or its Legal heirs are not available on record, it is decided to dispose the appeals as per law on hearing the Ld. DR. 3. The Ld. DR explained that there

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRJAL), LUDHIANA

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

7 appeals in respect of the Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2013-14 are 3 years old and the where about of either of the diseased appellant or its Legal heirs are not available on record, it is decided to dispose the appeals as per law on hearing the Ld. DR. 3. The Ld. DR explained that there

SHRI PURAN SINGH,SHAHKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

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

7 appeals in respect of the Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2013-14 are 3 years old and the where about of either of the diseased appellant or its Legal heirs are not available on record, it is decided to dispose the appeals as per law on hearing the Ld. DR. 3. The Ld. DR explained that there

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

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 is sufficient for him to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s. 147. No contention in its 4 ITA No.451 (Asr)/2017(A.Y.2012-13) Varinder Kumar Soul

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

reassessment as well.” Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryanain Vipin Khanna vs. CIT 255 ITR 220, the relevant paragraph is extracted as follows: - “14. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the letter dated 30-7- 1998 issued by the Assessing Officer insofar as it relates to matters unconnected with the issue of depreciation