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

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

u/s 151 of the Act, by observing as under: “5.0 Non service of 148 notice: it has been contended that no notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served upon the appellant, however in the remand report the Assessing Officer clearly mentioned that the notice was issued but it remained non-complied. There is difference between

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

u/s 151 of the Act, by observing as under: “5.0 Non service of 148 notice: it has been contended that no notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served upon the appellant, however in the remand report the Assessing Officer clearly mentioned that the notice was issued but it remained non-complied. There is difference between

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

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

SHRI HARJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. Copy of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act and for obtaining the approval of the JCIT

SOM RAJ,PATHANKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATHANKOT

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

147 of the Act only after due application of mind, and if for some reason an error creeps into the exercise of the said power by the A.O, then, the superior officer, i.e, the authority specified in Sec. 151 of the Act is able to correct the same. It is for the aforesaid reason, that Section 151 requires an officer

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

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

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

u/s 132(1)( c ) which has to have been discovered during search. “Assessment of Income of any other person. 153C. [(1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, "belongs

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.:

151(1). Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 is without jurisdiction as notice u/s 148 was issued after the expiry of three years with the approval joint commissioner/ additional commissioner of Income Tax. 3 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend and alter the grounds of appeal. 3. The Ld. AR explained that there was bonafide reason

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income