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

152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied: firstly

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

152 are substantially different from the ovisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied: firstly

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)

152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitutions. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed to confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied: firstly

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

152 of the I.T. Act the Ld. A.O erred in not dropping the proceeding started U/s 148. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in law in not accepting that the addition made of Rs. 27500/- U/s 40A(3) is not sustainable in law. I.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 2 5. That

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

152 CTR 418 (SC)) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings was valid it has only to I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 4 And C.O. Nos. 01 & 02/Asr/2025 be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

152 CTR 418 (SC)) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings was valid it has only to I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 4 And C.O. Nos. 01 & 02/Asr/2025 be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

152-P, Ferozepur. [PAN:-AARPM5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Appellant by Respondent by Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT. DR 16.12.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 15.01.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: Both these appeals are filed by the revenue against the orders of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( henceforth

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

152-P, Ferozepur. [PAN:-AARPM5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Appellant by Respondent by Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT. DR 16.12.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 15.01.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: Both these appeals are filed by the revenue against the orders of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( henceforth

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 148 of the Act only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing was not valid. Accordingly, the reassessment framed by the AO is quashed.” 22. In the case of ‘Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. G & G Pharma Ltd.’, reported in 384 ITR 147 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court (CLPB

MANDEEP SINGH S/O SH. NARINDER SINGH VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TARMALA MALOUT DISTRICT MUKTSAR,MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5) MUKTSAR JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

152 and 153/JP/2018, dated 28.06.2018, the Amritsar ITAT decision in the case of “Arun Kumar Kapoor, Amritsar Versus Department Of Income Tax”, ITA No. 147(ASR)/2010, and the Delhi High Court decision in the case of “PCIT Versus Anand Kumar Jain (HUF)”, in ITA No. 23/2021, dated 12.02.2021.” i). Sh. Gopal Sharan vs. ITO in ITA no. 51/Asr/2012 vide