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

10 Notices u/s 148, dated 29.03.2016, both of which were backed by separate ‘reasons to believe’. As both the Notices u/s 148 haver been issued on the same date, i.e, on 29.03.2016, therefore, it would be important to determine as to which of them was issued prior to the other. As the necessary sanction/approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

10 was assumed by the A.O for reopening of his case u/s 147 of the Act, i.e, without effecting a valid service of Notice u/s 148; as well as that as regards the validity of the assessment that was framed by him without issuing a Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, nor with those that were advanced

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

section 147 of the act. Thus, ground numbers 3, 5 and 6 of the appellant assessee are rejected. 12. In ground No. 7 to 10 the appellant challenged that the amount deposited was out of sale proceeds of Agricultural land of HUF and the AO has committed an error in reopening the case of individuals/appellant and hence the reassessment

SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,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

section 147 of the act. Thus, ground numbers 3, 5 and 6 of the appellant assessee are rejected. 12. In ground No. 7 to 10 the appellant challenged that the amount deposited was out of sale proceeds of Agricultural land of HUF and the AO has committed an error in reopening the case of individuals/appellant and hence the reassessment

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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 inducing the belief. Such a belief has not to be based on mere suspicion but it must be based on information as was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 191. Thus, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 cannot

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

10 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 inducing the belief. Such a belief has not to be based on mere suspicion but it must be based on information as was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 41 ITR 191. Thus, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 cannot

SHRIMATI AMARJIT KAUR W/O BUGAR SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The facts of the case as per record are that in the reassessment proceedings, the statutory notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 22 March 2016 which was received back with postal comments refused. Subsequently the official of the department was sent on 14 April 2016 for service

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

section 55(2)(b) and 55A of Income Tax Act, respectively before calculating the Capital Gain and order of A.O require to be set-a-side. 10. That the Id.CIT(A) has erred in law, as well as ,on facts by holding the land in question as individual land by ignoring land revenue record and further ignored that neither such

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

14 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso. So long as the ingredients of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceeding under section 147 and failure to take steps under section

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

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

reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated under section 147 for the purpose of enquiry and verification. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of-the case, CIT did not recorded satisfaction under Section 151 for issuing notice under Section 147. 4. Without prejudice, no approval has been obtained from the component authority as required u/s 151. Hence the notice

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5),, KATRA vs. SH. CHAIN SINGH, KATRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhryassessment Year:2010-11

u/s 147 & 148 of the Act were held to be invalid in the present case and there is no need to go into the merit of the case. 4.2 Let us to peruse the relevant provisions of law: "147. If the AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reassessed to confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied: firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to, income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either omission or failure on the part

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

u/s 143(3) dated 20/12/2017. 3. The A.O. relied solely upon the sale deed dated 15.07.1981 for computing the FMV of the land as on 01.04.1981 for the purpose of computation of capital gain. The copy of the subject sale deed dated 15.07.1981 was neither provided nor confronted to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

u/s 143(3) dated 20/12/2017. 3. The A.O. relied solely upon the sale deed dated 15.07.1981 for computing the FMV of the land as on 01.04.1981 for the purpose of computation of capital gain. The copy of the subject sale deed dated 15.07.1981 was neither provided nor confronted to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings

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

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. Copy of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act and for obtaining the approval of the JCIT

SAINIK CO OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal issue as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s Section 144B of the Act dated 29.05.2023 also deserve to be quashed. Decided in favour of the assessee. 2025 (6) TMI 1230 - GUJARAT HIGH CQURT, KRISHNA NAITIK PATEL PQA HOLDER OF ISHWERBHAI KESHAVBHAI PATEL VERSUS ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ANR Reopening of assessment - Period of limitation under new tax regime - validity

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

u/s. 149(1)(b). I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 10 Assessment Year: 2006-07 iii) That whether the ld.CIT(A) was competent, while deciding a case before him, to give direction to reopen a case for another year, not before him. 3. Rather than specifically addressing the above legal issues, the ld.CIT(A), in his impugned order, has taken a generic view

MAJOR SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 143(2), in such a case, thus, is only toward provision of providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to states it’s case where a return is filed by the assessee, i..e, in response to notice u/s.148(1), which is the ratio of the decision in Ram Narain Bansal (supra); Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. (supra

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

10%, ihich is fat' more 'than what has been declared by the appellant over a period of time. 4.20 It is well known that in the present times, all' economic frauds take place through the banking channels and therefore, the umbrage taken by the appellant that payments have been made through chectues 'and VAT has been paid cannot