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

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

131(1) of the Act, and directed him to produce a copy of the sale/purchase deeds a/w copy of his bank accounts for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. In compliance, Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) though appeared before the A.O, however, in his statement recorded on oath he did not even recognize the assessee, and categorically stated that he had neither

SOM RAJ,PATHANKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATHANKOT

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

131 or u/s 133(6) of the Act; (ii). that the reasons on the basis of which the case of ITA No. 628/Asr/2016 – A.Y 2010-11 4 Som Raj. Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pathankot the assessee was reopened does not bear any nexus with the material available on record; (iii). that the AO prior to reopening of the case

SHRI SHISH PAL SINGH,JALANHDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4) JALANDHAR

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

u/s 131 by the ld ITO. The ld. counsel argued that reopening was made on depending the documents which is not belong to assessee. 12.1. During argument the ld. counsel had placed three judgments which are as follows:- i) Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur [2008] 168 Taxman 39 (Punjab & Haryana):- “4. Section 147

SMT. ASHA CHHABRA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the ground no

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated to verify the source of investment in the purchase of plot and construction of house. Hence, the reasons to believe as recorded by the AO were infact reasons to suspect. d) The finding of the CIT(A) in para-3.2 that "At the stage of notice, it is 'the believe' of the AO based on facts

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Sh. Rajesh Mittal, Prop M/s Kamna Overseas had admitted in his statement (Q. No: 14 of his statement) that he had not entered into any sale/purchase from M/s Bhai Industries Pvt Ltd. Further, M/s Kamna Overseas/Enterprises has admitted to provide accommodation entries to various parties. The expenditure booked by the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED , TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

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

131 of the IT Act, 1961 wherein he deposed that he has operated various bank accounts in the name of various bogus/ defunct firms to facilitate the modus operandi of bogus purchases. M/s Punjab Rice Land Pvt. Ltd. is one of the concern which has booked bogus purchases from the aforesaid two bogus firms amounting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED, TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

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

131 of the IT Act, 1961 wherein he deposed that he has operated various bank accounts in the name of various bogus/ defunct firms to facilitate the modus operandi of bogus purchases. M/s Punjab Rice Land Pvt. Ltd. is one of the concern which has booked bogus purchases from the aforesaid two bogus firms amounting

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

147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 30.03.2016, as well as on merits challenged the addition of Rs. 1.50 crore (supra) that was made by him, viz. (i). the A.O had though reopened the assessment on the ground that an amount of Rs. 1.50 crore (supra) received by the assessee from Sh. Surjit Singh (supra) without any consideration was liable

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

147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 30.03.2016, as well as on merits challenged the addition of Rs. 1.50 crore (supra) that was made by him, viz. (i). the A.O had though reopened the assessment on the ground that an amount of Rs. 1.50 crore (supra) received by the assessee from Sh. Surjit Singh (supra) without any consideration was liable

SHRI GURCHARAN SINGH ,GARSHANKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

131 vide order sheet entry dt. 05-02-2014. The 3 Gurcharan Singh v. ITO copies available in the assessment records were also filed before the CIT(A). Therefore the addition of Rs. 3,95,000/- deserves to be deleted. 5. That the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 3,95,000/-without going into

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings has been initiated by the AO ( after necessary approval from higher authorities ) vide notice u/s 148 dated 23/03/2019. 5. Objections to notice u/s 148 has been raised and disposed off and submissions made by the assessee during assessment proceedings , consisting of books of accounts, copies of sale bills, transport documents evidencing movement of goods, bank statements, has been

SHRIMATI. SAVITRI DEVI,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

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

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

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.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 on basis of information related to sale of land amount to Rs.40,89,010/-. The assessment was completed

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

131 of the Act, by the DDIT, Investigation, Bathinda where the assessee has denied the opening of any bank account with OBC , and has stated that the bank account ( being A/c No xxxx 002070 with OBC ) , which is the subject matter of dispute in the instant case , has been fraudulently opened by Mr Amit Doda ( Prop M/s Gagan Wines

M/S. RAJ DEV ,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

u/s 131 of the IT Act 1961, in which they have stated that amount is still outstanding is a corroborative evidence and they have categorically denied making payments. The AO has not relied on their statements alone but has given 4 Raj Dev v. ITO findings like abnormal increase in cash received in the month of October