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

147 of the Act. 4. The facts of the case as per record are that in the reassessment proceedings, the statutory notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 22 March 2016 which was received back with postal comments refused. Subsequently the official of the department was sent on 14 April 2016 for service of notice

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(6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

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

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

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

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

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

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

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

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

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

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

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

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

133(6) of the Act. The case is squarely covered by Co-ordinate Bench ITAT Amritsat Bench Decisions in ITA No. 129(Asr)/2015 Assessment year:2005-06 Ashwani Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer Date of Order/ Judgment: 23/02/2016 In this judgment, the ITAT Amritsar has upheld that the mere AIR information that deposits were made in a bank account