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

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

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

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

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

3) of s. 143, s. 144 and s. 145 shall, ‘so far as may be’, apply. This, therefore, made the provision of s. 143(2) applicable to an assessment u/s. 158BC. The Apex Court noted that the assessee may not file the return, or may not, after doing so, comply with the notice u/s. 143(2)/142, stating that

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

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

reassessment proceedings. Apropos the objections filed by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings, it was submitted by him that the A.O had failed to dispose off the same by way of a speaking order. Also, it was the claim of the assessee that the impugned assessment order, i.e, u/s 148 r.w.s 143(3), dated 30.03.2016 was passed

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

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

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

3) r/w s. 147, is in effect and substance, in view of the non-compliance of notice u/s. 148(1), i.e., by filing a return as required thereby, is an assessment u/s. 144 r/w s. 147. The jurisdiction to reassess being assumed on the issue of a valid notice u/s. 148, the notice u/s. 143(2) does

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

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 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

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

reassessment proceeding and was satisfied that no income has escaped ITA Nos. 20&21/Asr/2021 7 Kaiser Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT assessment. The Ld. PCIT, Srinagar has set aside the order passed by Ld. A.O. u/s 143(3) read with section 147

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

reassessment proceeding and was satisfied that no income has escaped ITA Nos. 20&21/Asr/2021 7 Kaiser Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT assessment. The Ld. PCIT, Srinagar has set aside the order passed by Ld. A.O. u/s 143(3) read with section 147

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

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 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