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

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.:

147 is bad in law as the notice under section 148 was issued on 13.04.2021 without adheringto the new procedure applicable from 01.04.2021, specifically without complying with the provisions of section 148A. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2021, was issued on 13.04.2021, as contended

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

148A and also the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act are void ab-initio and invalid and as a result thereof, the consequential assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 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

LAKHVIR SINGH 810, VPO MALLAH TEHSIL JAGRAON DISTRICT LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC DELHI JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

148A(d) and notice u/s 148 issued on the same date. Thereafter various notices were issued u/s 142(1) calling for details and particulars on various dates of hearing and the final show cause notice was issued on 22.12.2023. 6. In response to the last SCN, the assessee submitted copies of bank statement, cash book, Form 26-AS and copies

PIRTPAL SINGH BRAR,MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 04.03.2024. 2 I.T.A. No. 38/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 2. The assessee has taken four grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 and all grounds relates to a single issue that the ld. CIT(A) being the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal refusing to admit the appeal for hearing

SMT..ANURADHA,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), PATHANKOT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

147 by the AO being unsustainable in law. 8. The additional grounds are admitted being legal grounds following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of NTPC vs CIT (supra). 9. At the very onset the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the first of the additional grounds regarding non mentioning

SAINIK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

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

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

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2023. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 701 & 406/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows in ITA No. 701/Asr/2024: “1. That the CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition made

SAINIK COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,SAINIK COLONY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD-1, JAMMU

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

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

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2023. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 701 & 406/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows in ITA No. 701/Asr/2024: “1. That the CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition made