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

3, point no-5 (mentioned above) the reason to belief of the ld ITO was formed from a receipt. In the course of argument the counsel had pointed out that in the receipt there is no amount is mentioned. The ld. Sr. DR relied on the ‘recorded statement’ of different parties which were summoned u/s 131

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

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

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

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

3. Further, you have stated that you had made a payments of Rs. 73,90,000/- for total purchase of Rs. 73,90,374/- during the F.Y 2010-11 instead of Rs. 58,74,080/-. During the course of proceedings u/s 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Sh. Rajesh Mittal, Prop M/s Kamna Overseas had admitted

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

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

3. The brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of retail trading of foreign liquor under license granted by the State Excise authorities. On the basis information gathered by the AO that the assessee has made cash deposit amounting to Rs. 15 crore ( fifteen crores ) in the current account maintained with Oriental Bank

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

147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Addition of income [Opportunity of hearing] - Assessee Sales Tax authority held that there was sale of spare parts of cars to assessee by car manufacturer but same was not recorded in books - Said information was supplied to Assessing Officer – Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings and made addition to assessee's income