SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

reassessment, therefore, the same not having been so done by the A.O in the present case, rendered the assessment framed by him u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 18.03.2014 as invalid. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (“D.R”, for short) supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the A.O had validly

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

reassessment, therefore, the same not having been so done by the A.O in the present case, rendered the assessment framed by him u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 18.03.2014 as invalid. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (“D.R”, for short) supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the A.O had validly

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(2), in such a case, thus, is only toward provision of providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to states it’s case where

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

reassessment proceedings dated 23rd May, 2023, passed u/s 147 rws 144 ( with 144B ) of the Act 61 , is not legally valid and the same is quashed. The arguments of the Ld. DR revolved around the decision of the Hon’ble 11) Apex court in the case of Union of India vs Ashis Agarwal [2022] dated

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

144 r.w.s. 147 by recording incorrect facts/reasons and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

144 r.w.s. 147 by recording incorrect facts/reasons and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order

SH. KARAMJIT SINGH RAI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: An information was received in AIR from the Tehsildar, to the effect that the assessee had purchased a land situated in village Kitna 2 Sh. Karamjit Singh Rai Vs. ITO from Smt. Naranjan Kaur wife of Sh. Udai Singh for a consideration of Rs.68

KHURSHID AHMAD DAR,JAMMU AND KASHMIR, INDIA vs. ITO WARD, UDHAMPUR, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Blekhurshid Ahmad Dar Vs. Ito, Ward, Nully Poshwari Turkawangam, Udhampur Shopia, 192305, Jammu & Kashmir, India.Pin 192305. Pan No. Awmpd5664K Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp. Revenue By Mrs. Roshanta Kumari Meena, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025. Date Of Pronouncement To. [1 .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 10.11.2016 with respect to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order passed under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is contrary to law and facts

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

144 r.w.s 148. That that assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 by the Ld. AO is in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions as stipulated under the Act. 4. That the notice u/s 148A(b) dated 22.03.2024 requiring the assessee to furnish reply by 29.03.2024 is bad in law since the time allowed to furnish reply is less than 7 days

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

144 r.w.s 148. That that assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 by the Ld. AO is in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions as stipulated under the Act. 4. That the notice u/s 148A(b) dated 22.03.2024 requiring the assessee to furnish reply by 29.03.2024 is bad in law since the time allowed to furnish reply is less than 7 days

HARVINDER SINGH BULLAR,VPO RANJITGARH, MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

147 r.w. section 144 of the Act, dated 09.03.2023 deserves to be quashed as the above said proceedings have been initiated by the JAO, instead of Faceless 3 I.T.A. No. 573/Asr/2024 Harvinder Singh Bhullar v. ITO mode, as provided u/s 151A of the Act in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, High Court of Telangna

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

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 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

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

144 of the Act. All three appeals are identical in nature under common factual backdropand alsoboth the assesses are in relation husband and wife. For the sake of convenience, we pass a common order for all three appeals. ITA No. 182/Asr/2019 is taken as a lead case. 2. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 02 days

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

144 of the Act. All three appeals are identical in nature under common factual backdropand alsoboth the assesses are in relation husband and wife. For the sake of convenience, we pass a common order for all three appeals. ITA No. 182/Asr/2019 is taken as a lead case. 2. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 02 days

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

144 of the Act. All three appeals are identical in nature under common factual backdropand alsoboth the assesses are in relation husband and wife. For the sake of convenience, we pass a common order for all three appeals. ITA No. 182/Asr/2019 is taken as a lead case. 2. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 02 days

SH. KULDEEP SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 579/Asr/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 instead of u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961, which proves that Assessment framed by him was without application of mind and in post haste manner and the Worthy CIT(A) has impliedly approved it without going through the facts of the case and adjudicate this ground of appeal without application of mind

M/S NICE TELECOM,MANSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 11.12.2012 for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. 2. It may be relevant to recount the facts of the case in brief. The assessee-firm, a franchisee dealer for Tata Tele-Services Ltd. (TTSL) (‘Principal’) for sale of telephony services (mobile connections), including installation and repair

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR, , CIVIL LINES vs. SH. BARJESH SINGHAL, MODERN COLONY

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

144 of the Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2022. 2 I.T.A. No. 363/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the revenue in Form No. 36 are as follows: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred to allow the appeal of the assessee and quashed the assessment u/s 147