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

reassessment proceeding vide another Notice u/s 148, dated 29/03/2016, i.e, as regards the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 43.47 lac 22 (supra) already stood triggered and were pending at the relevant point of time and, had thereafter culminated into an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 08.11.2016; nor are able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the mechanical manner

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

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

11 : (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) where it has categorically been held that in the light of objections filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer would pass a detailed order. 6.0 In consideration of discussion in paragraph 4 and 5 above, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are dismissed. 7.0 Ground of Appeal no. 6: This

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

11 : (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) where it has categorically been held that in the light of objections filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer would pass a detailed order. 6.0 In consideration of discussion in paragraph 4 and 5 above, the grounds of appeal no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are dismissed. 7.0 Ground of Appeal no. 6: This

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

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 permissible even if AO gathered reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment from the very same record which has been subject matter of completed asstt. n) 'Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar' [2004] 268 ITR 332/137 Taxman 479 (Bom.), The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are to be examined on a standalone basis and nothing

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

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

147 of the Income Tax Act is confirmed.” 8 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO 5. The Ld. AR for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the actions of the AO of additions made u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of unexplained credits found in the books

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

147 of the Act for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, 2004-05 to 2007-08 and 2010-11 to 2013-14. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee has again filed the third application for registration under section 12A on 5-11-2014 along with the resolution passed by the Execute Council of the University approving certain amendments

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

147 of the Act for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, 2004-05 to 2007-08 and 2010-11 to 2013-14. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee has again filed the third application for registration under section 12A on 5-11-2014 along with the resolution passed by the Execute Council of the University approving certain amendments

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

147 of the Act for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, 2004-05 to 2007-08 and 2010-11 to 2013-14. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee has again filed the third application for registration under section 12A on 5-11-2014 along with the resolution passed by the Execute Council of the University approving certain amendments

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

147 - period of limitation - notices issued u/s 148 of the old regime - HELD THAT:- A notice under Section 148 of the IT Act accompanied by an order under Section 148A (d) is required to be issued within the time stipulated under Section 149 of the IT Act. Section 148A (d) does not govern the computation of time as contemplated

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

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

11,56,169/- vide order u/s 143(3)1147 dated 20.12.2017. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the validity of the proceedings u/s 1471148 because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax did not record the satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO, as prescribed u/s 151, that the case of the assessee

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

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

11,56,169/- vide order u/s 143(3)1147 dated 20.12.2017. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the validity of the proceedings u/s 1471148 because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax did not record the satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO, as prescribed u/s 151, that the case of the assessee

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

11. We are of the opinion that statement recorded during search alone do not qualify as “incriminating material” in isolation and has to be linked to any tangible evidence, books and documents u/s 132(1)( c ) which has to have been discovered during search. “Assessment of Income of any other person. 153C. [(1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

reassessment order passed 147/143(3) of the Act after re- opening the assessment by drawing reasons to believe that income of Rs 513,17,594/-chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Moreover, if the assessee had grievance against the order of CIT-2, Amritsar u/s 263 of the Act dated 28-09-2011, he was free to file appeal before

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

section 147 appears to us to ensure that a party cannot get away by willfully making a false statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say 'you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing'. It would be a travesty of justice to allow

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

147 within the period prescribed under section 149 read with section 150 of the Act. We are fortified in our view by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. M. Sharma v. ITO [2002] 254 ITR 772 wherein the Apex Court had considered the amendment made in sub-section (1) of section

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

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

5 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10 sought for admission of the copies of the sale deeds and the bank a/c of Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) as additional evidence. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) had during the course of the assessment proceedings declined