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

143(3) of the Act. However, the AO had only erred in not passing a speaking order against the objections raised by the appellant to reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act which he was bound to do in accordance with the said decision of the hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

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

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. 10. That the Id.CIT(A) has erred in law, as well as ,on facts by holding the land in question as individual land by ignoring land revenue record and further ignored that neither such

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

147 of the Act, i.e, without effecting a valid service of Notice u/s 148; as well as that as regards the validity of the assessment that was framed by him without issuing a Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, nor with those that were advanced by him as regards the merits of the addition made

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

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

2) are not taken, reassessment proceedings can be taken. h) Aditya and Co. Vs CIT 279 ITR 47 P&H In the case of an intimation under section 143(l)(a) of the Act the question of examination of the material by the Assessing Officer did not arise at that stage. Therefore, in case of intimation u/s 143

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

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

147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) observed that he had while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2009-10 had upheld the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction that involving identical facts was raised

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

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

147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) observed that he had while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2009-10 had upheld the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction that involving identical facts was raised

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

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

147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) observed that he had while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2009-10 had upheld the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction that involving identical facts was raised

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

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

147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) observed that he had while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2009-10 had upheld the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction that involving identical facts was raised

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

2 nor can it interfere with the notice simply because on an overall reappraisal of material, a different opinion may be formed. e) Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO Under section 147 of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, wide power has been given

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

2 nor can it interfere with the notice simply because on an overall reappraisal of material, a different opinion may be formed. e) Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO Under section 147 of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, wide power has been given

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR vs. MS. SAVITA BANSAL, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, AMRITSAR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 240/Asr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Smt. Savita Bansal Ward-2(1) बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Amritsar 143001 H.No. 272, Green Avenue Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No. 1/Amritsar/2024 (In Ita No. 240/Asr/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Savita Bansal Income Tax Officer बनाम/ (Through L/H Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal) Ward-2(1) H.No. 272, Green Avenue Amritsar 143001 Vs. Amritsar-143001. "थायीलेखासं./Pan. Abmpb-3594-K (Assessee) / Acnpk-4131-D (Lh) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Dr Rakesh Gupta (Advocate) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Srinivas Kumar (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016- 1. 17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

u/s 143(2) has been acquired by issuing notices in the name of a deceased person which make the assessment nullity as per the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikram Bhatnagar vs. ACIT (147 Taxmann.com 254) rendered on similar facts. In this case law, it was held by Hon’ble Court that wherein

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

143(2) are not taken, reassessment proceedings can be taken. (2)It is further held by following the case of raymond wollen mills vs ITO (1999)236 ITR 34 SC, that court can invalidate a notice issued u/s 148 only if it is satisfied that no material was available before the A.O on the basis of which he could form

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

143 (3) of the Act, and the entire transaction of the assessee was examined by the assessing officer, therefore in view of first proviso of section 147, no reopening could be made by the assessing officer. It was submitted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose either the purchase of goods purchased from

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

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

143(3)1147 dated 20.12.2017. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the validity of the proceedings u/s 1471148 because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax did not record the satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO, as prescribed u/s 151, that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s

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

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

143(3)1147 dated 20.12.2017. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts & law in confirming the validity of the proceedings u/s 1471148 because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax did not record the satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO, as prescribed u/s 151, that the case of the assessee was fit for issue of notice u/s

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.426/Asr/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

2) of the IT Act. The AO is being directed to re-compute the quantum of long term capital gains on sale of property by taking the sale consideration at Rs.2,03,00,000 and workout the amount of capital gains accordingly.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

SH GAUTAM SETH,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATALA

In the result, the Ground Nos

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

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and the additions made therein are illegal bad in law and without jurisdiction as no notice u/s 143(2) has not been served within the prescribed time as per the provisions of law” The relevant facts are already on record and no new fact is required to be investigated. The above noted