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

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

reassessment are held to be devoid of any merits and substance and therefore, same are as such rejected. 12. In ground no. 3 & 4, the assessee has challenged approval granted by the CIT u/s 151 for issuing notice u/s 147 as bad in law. This issue of approval granted u/s 151 of the Income

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

section 292C of Income Tax Act would raise a presumption that notice has been served properly upon the appellant. In respect of reasons not been properly recorded, it is to be seen that in the course of the survey proceedings both the appellants were examined and the statements were recorded. In the statements, there has been categorical admission of having

JASWINDER SINGH BAINS ALIA JAZZY B,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

57,641/- and balance Rs. 33,44,359 in the name of Dinesh alongwith applications of the amount under various heads, one of which contains payment shift to Canada, amounting to Rs. 10,20,000/- on pages 136- 138. Page No. 135 also contains entries totaling at Rs. 76,02,000/-, which includes 19 lacs as shown, as given

JASWINDER SINGH BAINS ALIA JAZZY B,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

57,641/- and balance Rs. 33,44,359 in the name of Dinesh alongwith applications of the amount under various heads, one of which contains payment shift to Canada, amounting to Rs. 10,20,000/- on pages 136- 138. Page No. 135 also contains entries totaling at Rs. 76,02,000/-, which includes 19 lacs as shown, as given

JASWINDER SINGH BAINS ALIA JAZZY B,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

57,641/- and balance Rs. 33,44,359 in the name of Dinesh alongwith applications of the amount under various heads, one of which contains payment shift to Canada, amounting to Rs. 10,20,000/- on pages 136- 138. Page No. 135 also contains entries totaling at Rs. 76,02,000/-, which includes 19 lacs as shown, as given

JASWINDER SINGH BAINS ALIA JAZZY B,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

57,641/- and balance Rs. 33,44,359 in the name of Dinesh alongwith applications of the amount under various heads, one of which contains payment shift to Canada, amounting to Rs. 10,20,000/- on pages 136- 138. Page No. 135 also contains entries totaling at Rs. 76,02,000/-, which includes 19 lacs as shown, as given

JASWINDER SINGH BAINS ALIA JAZZY B,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

57,641/- and balance Rs. 33,44,359 in the name of Dinesh alongwith applications of the amount under various heads, one of which contains payment shift to Canada, amounting to Rs. 10,20,000/- on pages 136- 138. Page No. 135 also contains entries totaling at Rs. 76,02,000/-, which includes 19 lacs as shown, as given

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

57,053/- which was chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2011- 12 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. To assess this income and also any other income chargeable to tax which comes to my notice subsequently in the course of assessment proceedings under this section, a notice

M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

57 to 70 I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 7 of Paper Book. Relevant pages are 69 to 70, in which, the same view has been taken. Page 71-81 The Amritsar Bench of the ITAT in a judgment placed at pages 71- 81, after considering the arguments from both the sides had considered this issue at length