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

67-70 stamp duty document no.55611 6. Copy of sale deed in the name of Harjit Singh dated 17/04/2013 71-74 stamp duty document no.174706 7. Copy of sale deed in the name of Harjit Singh dated 25/04/2013 75-78 stamp duty document no.556043 8. Copy of sale deed in the name of Harjit Singh dated 25/04/2013 79-82 stamp

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

67 ITR 84 and Smt. Tara Devi\nAggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges\nfrom these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any\nenquiring, then such an order would be erroneous.\n26.\nThis provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or\nerror committed

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-1,, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

M/S CGA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

M/S CGA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-1,, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-1,, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

M/S GCA MARKETING PVT. LTD,BATHINDA vs. A.C.I.T , CIRCLE-1,, BATHINDA

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

reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I. T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void abinitio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts

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

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

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

section 5(1) , determining the amount payable under this Act shall be conclusive as to the matter stated therein and no matter covered by such order reopened in any proceedings under the Income -tax Act. Attention in this regard is invited to the case of Uma Corporation v. ACIT & Ors. (2006) 204 CTR 282 / 284 ITR 67

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

section 5(1) , determining the amount payable under this Act shall be conclusive as to the matter stated therein and no matter covered by such order reopened in any proceedings under the Income -tax Act. Attention in this regard is invited to the case of Uma Corporation v. ACIT & Ors. (2006) 204 CTR 282 / 284 ITR 67

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

section 101 of the Evidence Act 1872, the onus is on the appellant to prove that the LTCG is genuine. However, the appellant has not been able to discharge the onus cast on it. The findings of the AO are based on strong surrounding circumstances, preponderance of probability and human conduct in light of analysis of modus 8 I.T.A

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

section 101 of the Evidence Act 1872, the onus is on the appellant to prove that the LTCG is genuine. However, the appellant has not been able to discharge the onus cast on it. The findings of the AO are based on strong surrounding circumstances, preponderance of probability and human conduct in light of analysis of modus 8 I.T.A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI CHUNI LAL, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

67,668 based on the documents found in the course of survey. It is stated that making an addition again in this year of total amount of Rs. 5 crore would lead to making a double addition of the same amount on the basis of same material, which is against the principles of taxation. The appellant has placed reliance

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI HARMESH KUMAR, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

67,668 based on the documents found in the course of survey. It is stated that making an addition again in this year of total amount of Rs. 5 crore would lead to making a double addition of the same amount on the basis of same material, which is against the principles of taxation. The appellant has placed reliance