DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

section, a notice u/s 148 Is Issued for the A.Y. 2016-17. (Arvind Bansal) Dated: 29.03.2019 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirde-l, Bathinda 6. On receipt of recorded reasons the assessee raised objections to initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and submitted documentary evidences and explanations praying for dropping of reassessment proceedings, along with copies of letter of intent issued

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

section 69 will I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 9 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 not be applicable to the legal heir for the assessee and also challenged the jurisdiction for reassessment u/s 147 without issuing the notice u/s 133

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

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

reassessment proceedings, if the twin conditions prescribed under section 147 of the Act are satisfied. The grounds of appeal are dismissed. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and also moved an application for admission of additional evidences stating therein as under: Sub: Assessment Year

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

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

reassessment proceedings, if the twin conditions prescribed under section 147 of the Act are satisfied. The grounds of appeal are dismissed. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and also moved an application for admission of additional evidences stating therein as under: Sub: Assessment Year

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

147 are hereby rejected as not sustainable and you are requested to cooperate in the early finalization of the assessment proceedings. Further it is also hereby intimated that the enquiry letters u/s 133(6) issued by this office to all the 3 parties viz. M/s Lovy Steel and Allied Industries, M/s ShreenathIspat Udyog, M/s Shiv BholeKirpa Traders have been received

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

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

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 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

Section 147 (a) of the Act the Act. (2) If satisfaction is arrived at on the basis of any relevant material, such satisfaction cannot be assailed, Tilak raj bedi vs JCIT (2009) 319 ITR 385-P&H- The power of reassessment can be validly exercised if satisfaction is arrived at after following due procedure that income had escaped assessment. Such

JALALABAD SOLVEX PRIVATE LTD,JALALABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR-1, PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

133(6) prior to initiation of assessment proceedings filed [DIN: ElA'AST/S/133(6)/2020- 21/1030173501(1)' ii 31-03- Notice Under 2021 Notice u/s 148 dated 31-03-2021 received Return of income section 148 filed in response to the notice under section [DIN: TBA/AST/S/148/2020- 21/1032083993(1)] 148 iii 28-06- Notice under section 143(2) issued on Notice under

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

SMT. NIRMAL KAUR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 700/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 08.12.2016 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2.1 The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee was issued a notice u/s. 148 on 30.3.2016 on the basis of the Annual Information Report (AIR) with the Revenue as to the assessee having made purchase/sale transaction

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 21.12.2011 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 2. The appeal is delayed by a period of 87 days, having been filed on 29.08.2016 as against the due date of 03.06.2016. The condonation application dated 11.10.2016 explains the delay as on account of the assessee having moved

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

147 for reopening of assessment is required to be issued in this case. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been obtained separately from Pr. CIT (Central) as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act." Notice u/s

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

147 for reopening of assessment is required to be issued in this case. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been obtained separately from Pr. CIT (Central) as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act." Notice u/s

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

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

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