SHRI BALJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

reassessment is not based merely on change of opinion but also on subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Co-operative’s case (1999) 237 ITR 574 (SC). There was material justifying invoking of jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act. j) Grover Nursing Home 248 ITR 493 P&H An analysis of the aforementioned decisions

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

RANA IQBAL SINGH,V. DOSANJH KALAN, PHILLAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 496/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rana Iqbal Singh, बनाम The Ito, Ward-1, Village Dosanjh Kalan, Assessment Unit, Tehsil Phillaur Delhi Distt. Jalandhar 144502 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Ctops8735D अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent

reassessment on the basis of ‘Iqrarnama’ found from the premises of Sh. Chuni Lai Gaba on 18.03.2014 and it was claimed by the assessee 496-Asr-2024 Rana Iqbal Singh, Jalandhar 4 that he does not know the said Sh. Chuni Lai Guba. The basic reason for issuance of notice u/s 148 were as under: i). ‘Iqrarnama' was found from

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

281 CTR 241 v) CIT vs Smt. Sunita Dhadda in ITA No. 197/2012(99 CCH394 Raj HC) order dated 31.07.2017 (Rajasthan HC) vi) CIT vs. Smc. Share Brokers Lt. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del) vii) Shree Bishandas Iron Works vs DCIT in ITA No. 1232/Kol/2014 order dated 26.12.2017 viii) Shri Rajeev Agarwal & Sons vs ITO in ITA No. 6087/Del/2018 order

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated u/s 147 for the purpose of enquiry or verification. The counsel placed reliance on the following judgments as per Case Law index reproduced here under: 6 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO 7 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO 8. Per contra, the defendant ld. DR has raised strong

M/S NICE TELECOM,MANSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 143(3) order dated 08.12.2009, and reads as under (PB pgs. 8): ‘3. The assessee firm derives income from commission on sales of connection, bill deliveries and purchase and sale of mobiles and accessories. The assessee has shown gross profit of Rs.19,04,393 whereas the net profit is Rs.27020 only, which is very low. The assessee has debited

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S KHOSLA INTERNATIONAL, BATALA

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 147 is satisfied, i.e., there is material/ information on record giving rise to a reason to believe escapement of income from assessment, which is specific, reliable and relevant to the formation of the belief. That the relevant facts could be found upon investigation of the material on record, or by being more diligent in the matter, would not impede

AMBEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BATHINDA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfa7199K

section 282 of the IT Act, 1961. The specific objection was raised during the course of assessment proceedings and the same has not even not rebutted by the AO during assessment proceedings and ITA No. 121/Asr./2017 2 Ambey Construction Company this fact has even been admitted by him in the remand report. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

M/S. RAJ DEV ,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FARIDKOT

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

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

reassessment proceedings and made addition to assessee's income - On appeal, Tribunal found that Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had set aside order of Sales Tax authority - Further, no authenticated document providing information was collected from car manufacturer, nor was same furnished to assessee or assessee was given opportunity of cross-examining officer who made statement relating to sale in question

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

reassessment proceeding due to the absence of any purchase agreements and details of transportation in respect of the said purchases and as such the same has remained unexplained and addition has been made of the entire amount of purchase totaling Rs.6,43,54,912/-, u/s 69C of the Act to the total income of the assessee as bogus purchase