SHRI MATI SANJANA MITTAL ,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). This is precisely what stands clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Madhushree Gupta & Ors v. Union of India [2009] 317 ITR 107 (Del), a copious decision rendered under writ jurisdiction on a challenge to the vires of the provision (section 271(1B)). Upholding

SHRI GAURAV JOSHI,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD-1(5), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.274/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sh. Gaurav Joshi, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sh. Ashray Sarna, Adv., B- Ward-1(5), 18, Vakil Building, Model Jalandhar Town Road, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amjpj3603P Assessee By : Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2019

section 2(7A) of the Act. These reasons are, thus, struck down as void ab initio, null and void. Since the reasons to believe escapement of income themselves have been declared null and void, all proceedings in furtherance thereof, culminating in the impugned order are also void ab initio and are quashed as such.” So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred

SHRI KASHMIR SINGH S/O SHRI SHINGARA SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), AMRITSAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

reassessments are wrong which are subject matter of the reopening of the case for this particular assessment year and he did not conduct his own investigations to satisfy himself about the correctness of particulars before reasons recorded, which is totally erroneous and untenable. The reasons recorded for reopening are vague and there in no live nexus between the reasons recorded

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

reassessment), passed on the same date on which the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) r/w s. 274 was issued for initiating the proceedings for imposing the penalty. The requirement of section

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

section 147 of the act. Since, no addition made on the ground of reasons recorded, hence, the additions would not sustain.In support, he placed reliance on the judgement of the coordinate Amritsar Bench in the case of Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer in ITA No.274 ASR 2018 order dated Jan.16, 2019; [2019] 174 DTR 0353(Asr)Trib) where

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

section 147 of the act. Since, no addition made on the ground of reasons recorded, hence, the additions would not sustain.In support, he placed reliance on the judgement of the coordinate Amritsar Bench in the case of Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer in ITA No.274 ASR 2018 order dated Jan.16, 2019; [2019] 174 DTR 0353(Asr)Trib) where

SMT. BHARTI SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

section 147 of the act. Since, no addition made on the ground of reasons recorded, hence, the additions would not sustain.In support, he placed reliance on the judgement of the coordinate Amritsar Bench in the case of Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer in ITA No.274 ASR 2018 order dated Jan.16, 2019; [2019] 174 DTR 0353(Asr)Trib) where

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

reassessment proceedings the A.O holding a conviction that the conversion of pure gold/bullion (24 carat) into gold ornaments (22 carat) could not be construed as an activity of “manufacturing” of gold ornaments, had thus, called upon the assessee to justify his claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Also, it was observed by the A.O in the body

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

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

reassessment proceedings the A.O holding a conviction that the conversion of pure gold/bullion (24 carat) into gold ornaments (22 carat) could not be construed as an activity of “manufacturing” of gold ornaments, had thus, called upon the assessee to justify his claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Also, it was observed by the A.O in the body

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

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

reassessment proceedings the A.O holding a conviction that the conversion of pure gold/bullion (24 carat) into gold ornaments (22 carat) could not be construed as an activity of “manufacturing” of gold ornaments, had thus, called upon the assessee to justify his claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Also, it was observed by the A.O in the body

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

reassessment proceedings the A.O holding a conviction that the conversion of pure gold/bullion (24 carat) into gold ornaments (22 carat) could not be construed as an activity of “manufacturing” of gold ornaments, had thus, called upon the assessee to justify his claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Also, it was observed by the A.O in the body