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

MAJOR SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

147, in-as-much as the jurisdiction to assess gets assumed on the issue of the notice u/s. 148(1), and to pass a reassessment order on the service thereof (refer R.K. Upadhyaya (supra)). Section 143

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S KHOSLA INTERNATIONAL, BATALA

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

147. The jurisdiction to reassess being assumed on the issue of a valid notice u/s. 148, the notice u/s. 143(2) does not, it 10 Asst. CIT v. Khosla International may be appreciated, assume the status of a jurisdictional notice. The failure to issue a notice u/s. 143(2) in such a case would not invalidate an assessment, as explained

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

1) had informed the assessee that the said reply is not relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 under consideration. The AO had rightly informed the assessee with regard to issue of notice u/ s 143(2) of the Act that it was a settled law that notice u/s 143(2) is issued only after receiving the return filed

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

147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, reassessment can be initiated even if there is disclosure in the return if without considering the particulars of the return, processing is done under s. 143(1) or assessment is made under s. 143(3). No doubt, mere change of opinion by itself is not a ground for reassessment as held in the judgments relied

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

147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, reassessment can be initiated even if there is disclosure in the return if without considering the particulars of the return, processing is done under s. 143(1) or assessment is made under s. 143(3). No doubt, mere change of opinion by itself is not a ground for reassessment as held in the judgments relied

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 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, reassessment can be initiated even if there is disclosure in the return if without considering the particulars of the return, processing is done under s. 143(1) or assessment is made under s. 143(3). No doubt, mere change of opinion by itself is not a ground for reassessment as held in the judgments relied

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

143(2) and subsequent requisitions u/s 142(1), and without any satisfactory explanation to the source of cash deposited in bank , the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.85.63 lakhs (which include the amount of Rs.72.10 lakhs as addition u/s 69A). I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 4 Assessment Year: 2013-14 4. The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed

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

u/s. 149(1)(b). I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 10 Assessment Year: 2006-07 iii) That whether the ld.CIT(A) was competent, while deciding a case before him, to give direction to reopen a case for another year, not before him. 3. Rather than specifically addressing the above legal issues, the ld.CIT(A), in his impugned order, has taken a generic view

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

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

1,05,56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward

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

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

1,05,56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward

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

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

1,05,56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward

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

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

1,05,56,012/- made by the A.O u/s 68. Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed. 7. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) : Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu – A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2009-10- ITA No. 305/Asr/2015 & ITA No. 05/Asr/2013 Shri Puneet Sehdev Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu –A.Y 2009-10- ITA No.579/Asr/2016 11 ITO, Ward

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

1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee after receipt of the reasons to believe, filed the objection vide letter dated 10th of July 2017 mentioning therein that, the assessment proceedings of the assessee were completed under section 143 (3) of the Act, and the entire transaction of the assessee was examined by the assessing officer, therefore

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

reassess takinginto consideration the other material in respect ofcompleted assessments/unabated assessments.Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabatedassessments, no addition can be made by the AO inabsence of any incriminating material found during thecourse of search under Section 132 or requisition underSection 132A of the Act, 1961. However, thecompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened bythe AO in exercise of powers under Sections

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

reassess takinginto consideration the other material in respect ofcompleted assessments/unabated assessments.Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabatedassessments, no addition can be made by the AO inabsence of any incriminating material found during thecourse of search under Section 132 or requisition underSection 132A of the Act, 1961. However, thecompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened bythe AO in exercise of powers under Sections

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

reassess takinginto consideration the other material in respect ofcompleted assessments/unabated assessments.Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabatedassessments, no addition can be made by the AO inabsence of any incriminating material found during thecourse of search under Section 132 or requisition underSection 132A of the Act, 1961. However, thecompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened bythe AO in exercise of powers under Sections

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

reassess takinginto consideration the other material in respect ofcompleted assessments/unabated assessments.Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabatedassessments, no addition can be made by the AO inabsence of any incriminating material found during thecourse of search under Section 132 or requisition underSection 132A of the Act, 1961. However, thecompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened bythe AO in exercise of powers under Sections