SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME 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

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

2 of section 263(1) of the Act on the ground that AO failed to make the necessary enquiry or verification. 7. That the ld.Pr.CIT-1, Amritsar has erred in ignoring various case laws cited before him holding that CIT cannot acquire jurisdiction u/s 263 merely because another view is possible. 3 I.T.A. No. 117/Asr/2024 Jalalabad Solvex

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

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

2 to sub section (1) of Section 263 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable in the present case. Since, the A.O. has made all enquiries regarding the cash flow statement from the State Bank of India as well as from the Punjab National Bank and the deposit was also confirmed from the certificate issued by M/s Amar

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

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

2. The above show cause notice was issued on 15-03-2021 fixing the date for 19.03-2021 and sent through Speed Post as well as through ITBA System. In response to the show cause notice, the counsel of the assessee Sh. Jorawar Singh Bhasin, Advocate filed reply/statements of accounts through email on 27.03.2021-. I have considered the reply

M/S. PUNJAB IRON & STEEL COMPANY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

263 of 2011 GA No. 2856 of 2011 High Court of Calcutta: "After getting the PAN number and getting the information that the creditor is assessed under the Act, the Assessing Officer should enquire from the Assessing Officer of the creditor as to the genuineness of the transaction and whether transaction has been accepted by the Assessing Officer

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

2) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, 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

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

reassessment complete is valid and the Appellants ground is dismissed. Issue on merits: I have gone through the submission made by the Appellant, the Appellant is an Association of Person which has been formed with the object of setting up and I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 1 operating warehousing facility for storage

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, 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

reassessment complete is valid and the Appellants ground is dismissed. Issue on merits: I have gone through the submission made by the Appellant, the Appellant is an Association of Person which has been formed with the object of setting up and I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 1 operating warehousing facility for storage

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

reassessment" cannot be reduced beyond the income originally assessed. 5.3 In view of that matter, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of confirming the finding of the AO in not accepting the loss return claim on account of carry forward of losses by the assessee and hence, no interference is called

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

reassessment order passed 147/143(3) of the Act after re- opening the assessment by drawing reasons to believe that income of Rs 513,17,594/-chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Moreover, if the assessee had grievance against the order of CIT-2, Amritsar u/s 263 of the Act dated 28-09-2011, he was free to file appeal before

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 when there is no new material available with the Assessing officer and all the facts were duly verified by the Assessing officer while framing the assessment and same was brought to the knowledge

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 had filed written submissions and paper book which was kept in the record. By perusal the assessment order, the relevant part of the order is reproduced as below:- “09. Since the assessee has himself tried to cover up this