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

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; that the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda was absolutely unjustified in cancelling the order dated 10.02.2014, vide which Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Bathinda dropped the penalty under section 271D, after having appreciated the facts of the case judiciously and on merits; that the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

SHRI KULDIP SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

263. 3. That the ld. ITO having taken his view in reassessment, to accept cash deposited in bank as trading transactions to assess net profit thereon, the ld. PCIT erred in setting aside the order simply for making roving enquiries. 4. That the order under appeal is wholly against law and facts of the case.” 3. The assessment order passed

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

SHRI SUKHJINDER SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. PRINICPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

263 is very hard to understand as with the issuance of Form 5 the proceedings closed and there was no valid order remaining for the PCIT to resort to such action. Reference in this regard is drawn to Section 5 (3) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, wherein it has been stated that every order passed under

SHRIMATI. LATA NARANG,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment is not permissible .Accordingly after issue of certificate in respect of tax in dispute revision u/s 263 is not permissible. Thus on this account also the action of the PCIT u/s 263 is bad and deserves to be cancelled. Hence it is prayed that appreciating the above facts and submissions the order passed by the PCIT -1, Jalandhar

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 263 of the l. T. Act, 1 9 6 1 after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. The case was reopened on the reasons that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 60,00,000 in her saving bank account maintained with the Oriental Bank of Commerce during the financial year 2010-11 and that no voluntary return

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 , KAPUTHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, ITA

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in this case. 2. That the Id. Pr.CIT, grossly erred in law, to hold the re-assessment order passed u/s,143(3)/147, as erroneous u/s.263, by relying upon a purported mis-match list, subsequently procured by her from the ETO, unmindful that the Id. lTO had concluded reassessment

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

263 cannot be invoked to enlarge the scope of jurisdiction, to make addition beyond the subject matter of reasons recorded u/s.148. iii) Now coming to the merits of the proposed addition of the entire purchases made from these 18, being bogus, this allegation is absolutely false, baseless and totally de hors the facts on record. Undoubtedly, the I.T.A. No.17/Asr/2021

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

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

263. Further, he agitated that the section 69 will I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 9 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 not be applicable to the legal heir for the assessee and also challenged the jurisdiction for reassessment

M/S TORRENT ROOFING SYSTEM,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

Reassessment made by the Assessing officer U/s 143 (3) read with section 263 of Income Tax Act and confirmed by CIT (A) is bad in law, especially

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

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

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee