SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof 6. That while confirming

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

reassessment under s. 147. We also do not find anything in the context of s. 273 which would require the words 'regular assessment' to be given a meaning different from the one given by the legislature when these words were defined." 25. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by Chandurkar J. Moreover, there is another aspect to this case

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

reassessment under s. 147. We also do not find anything in the context of s. 273 which would require the words 'regular assessment' to be given a meaning different from the one given by the legislature when these words were defined." 25. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by Chandurkar J. Moreover, there is another aspect to this case

SH. JOGINDER SINGH S/O. SH. GURDIAL SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

reassessment proceedings being unaccounted investment in purchase of land. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has although granted relief to the appellant in the terms indicated here under: 5.1 I have given careful consideration to the contention of the appellant and find that there existed enough material to come to a conclusion that extra money/premium has been paid in the purchase

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

91-94 stamp duty document no.556315 12. Copy of sale deed in the name of Harjit Singh dated 29/04/2013 95-98 stamp duty document no.A092727 13. Copy of sale deed in the name of Harjit Singh dated 14/05/2013 99-102 stamp duty document no.A143188 14. Copy of sale deed in the name of Harjit Singh dated 14/05/2013 103-106 stamp

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact that there was no incriminating material pertaining to this assessee

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact that there was no incriminating material pertaining to this assessee

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact that there was no incriminating material pertaining to this assessee

SH. PRATAP SINGH SAMRA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recomputed the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned” From the plain reading of the section

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

reassessment on the basis of audit objection is legally invalid in absence of any tangible material gathered post assessment , and all materials regarding expenses incurred were made available to the AO in original proceedings and are all existing in assessment records , on which due application of mind has been made by the AO , and the revenue audit

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.”

91- These are small slips showing some expenses, Pay-in-siip and 94 also slips under the head show expenses, video shoots and Jazzy, totaling Rs. 39,62,304/-. A-2 98- This page contains various misc. expenses. However this page 99 contains some major entries to Jazzy B-3,00,000-dollar(page 98), Dinesh-Rs. 5 lac-Page

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.”

91- These are small slips showing some expenses, Pay-in-siip and 94 also slips under the head show expenses, video shoots and Jazzy, totaling Rs. 39,62,304/-. A-2 98- This page contains various misc. expenses. However this page 99 contains some major entries to Jazzy B-3,00,000-dollar(page 98), Dinesh-Rs. 5 lac-Page

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.”

91- These are small slips showing some expenses, Pay-in-siip and 94 also slips under the head show expenses, video shoots and Jazzy, totaling Rs. 39,62,304/-. A-2 98- This page contains various misc. expenses. However this page 99 contains some major entries to Jazzy B-3,00,000-dollar(page 98), Dinesh-Rs. 5 lac-Page

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.”

91- These are small slips showing some expenses, Pay-in-siip and 94 also slips under the head show expenses, video shoots and Jazzy, totaling Rs. 39,62,304/-. A-2 98- This page contains various misc. expenses. However this page 99 contains some major entries to Jazzy B-3,00,000-dollar(page 98), Dinesh-Rs. 5 lac-Page

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.”

91- These are small slips showing some expenses, Pay-in-siip and 94 also slips under the head show expenses, video shoots and Jazzy, totaling Rs. 39,62,304/-. A-2 98- This page contains various misc. expenses. However this page 99 contains some major entries to Jazzy B-3,00,000-dollar(page 98), Dinesh-Rs. 5 lac-Page

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

reassessment (Venus Industrial Corporation v. Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 742 (P&H)). To say therefore that the present is a case of change of opinion or borrowed satisfaction in view of the audit objection having been raised would not be correct. 6 Asst. CIT v. Khosla International The import of the letter dated 19.08.2011 to the audit cell

MANDEEP SINGH S/O SH. NARINDER SINGH VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TARMALA MALOUT DISTRICT MUKTSAR,MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5) MUKTSAR JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

reassessment proceedings.” ii) Sh. Mohd Yousuf Wani vs. ITO in ITA No. 372/Asr/2009(Amritsar ITAT): I.T.A. No. 645/Asr/2024 10 Assessment Year: 2012-13 “ In our considered view, reliance placed by the A.O on the letter of Vigilance Department was not sufficient to make a belief that the income of the Assessee has escaped assessment. In the present case, the reason

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

91 ITR 18 (SC) the Supreme Court held that an admission is a piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Consequently, a statement made voluntary under Section 133A of the Act cannot be retracted unless the assessee files evidence to show Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors that the admission made in the statement at the time