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

11 Assessment Year: 2013-14 issued on 30-5-2022 in furtherance of notice dated 1-6-2021 and impugned order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 issued on 30-7-2022 were beyond period of limitation as provided under section 149(1) - It was noted that last date for issuance of notice under section

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

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

u/s 149 of the Act, the reopening of the assessment would be invalid in the eyes of law. The Hon’ble High Court while concluding as hereinabove had after drawing support from the various judicial pronouncements observed as under : “7. As is well known, section 147 of the Act pertains to income escaping assessment. In terms of subsection (1

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

u/s 151 of the Act, by observing as under: “5.0 Non service of 148 notice: it has been contended that no notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served upon the appellant, however in the remand report the Assessing Officer clearly mentioned that the notice was issued but it remained non-complied. There is difference between

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

u/s 151 of the Act, by observing as under: “5.0 Non service of 148 notice: it has been contended that no notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served upon the appellant, however in the remand report the Assessing Officer clearly mentioned that the notice was issued but it remained non-complied. There is difference between

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, [***], as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, [***], as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

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 Income Tax Act: 7. It is well settled in law that reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor anything can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever

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

147. The jurisdiction to reassess being assumed on the issue of a valid notice u/s. 148, the notice u/s. 143(2) does not, it 10 Asst. CIT v. Khosla International may be appreciated, assume the status of a jurisdictional notice. The failure to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) in such a case would not invalidate an assessment, as explained

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

d). There is a reply to that, which is placed at page 17 of the Paper Book, dated 23.07.1998 and the necessary documents as desired had been filed. e). Then again there is another letter, dated 12.08.1998 at page 18 of the paper book, confirming that the information had already been filed, which were again reiterated as per letter, dated

M/S LORD MAHAVIR HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE & 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

d). There is a reply to that, which is placed at page 17 of the Paper Book, dated 23.07.1998 and the necessary documents as desired had been filed. e). Then again there is another letter, dated 12.08.1998 at page 18 of the paper book, confirming that the information had already been filed, which were again reiterated as per letter, dated

LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPHATIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (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

d). There is a reply to that, which is placed at page 17 of the Paper Book, dated 23.07.1998 and the necessary documents as desired had been filed. e). Then again there is another letter, dated 12.08.1998 at page 18 of the paper book, confirming that the information had already been filed, which were again reiterated as per letter, dated

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)

D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2011- 12, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar [in short ‘CIT(A)’], which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147/143(3) of the Income

SHRIMATI. HARBHAJAN KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (20, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

d) MEENAKSHY LUCKY CENTRE vs. JCIT (2002) 74TTJ (Coch) 458 Pg. 99 to 144 case laws. 4. Briefly facts are that based on information in possession of the department that assessee has purchased immovable property of Harbhajan Kaur v. ITO Rs.10,80,000/- of which purchase deed was executed on 06.02.2012 where stamp duty charged was Rs. 64,800/-. After

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 is bad in law as the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 and proceedings completed u/s 148A(d) were made by the jurisdictional AO which is in violation with the provisions of section 151A read with notification no S.O. 1466 (E) No 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. 6. That the information uploaded on the insight portal is nowhere corroborated with any independent

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 is bad in law as the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 and proceedings completed u/s 148A(d) were made by the jurisdictional AO which is in violation with the provisions of section 151A read with notification no S.O. 1466 (E) No 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. 6. That the information uploaded on the insight portal is nowhere corroborated with any independent