D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

147 [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]] or section 150; (ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

147 [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]] or section 150; (ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section

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

155 CTR 538 (SC)- "Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section 147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law" (ii) Usha International Ltd, vs Assessee

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

reassessment proceedings provided he has reasons to believe but the same cannot be taken recourse to on the basis of reasons to suspect-ITO & Ors, vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) relied on". Therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of the "reason" recorded is vitiated. Thus, the reasons

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

reassessment proceedings provided he has reasons to believe but the same cannot be taken recourse to on the basis of reasons to suspect-ITO & Ors, vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) relied on". Therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of the "reason" recorded is vitiated. Thus, the reasons

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

reassessment" cannot be reduced beyond the income originally assessed. 5.3 In view of that matter, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of confirming the finding of the AO in not accepting the loss return claim on account of carry forward of losses by the assessee and hence, no interference is called

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act Dt. 12.09.2021 in which the income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs. 71,03,069/- while making the addition of Rs. 43,39,999/-. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred on facts and law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee, vide order u/s

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR vs. K.M.V. COLLEGIATE SR. SEC. SCHOOL, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue Department under consideration stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita Nos.622 & 623(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12

reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147 of the IT Act are held to be invalid. Further, it is seen from the record that even on merits, the claim of exemption u/s 10(23 C)(vi) of the IT Act has been allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT to the appellant in its order dated

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR vs. K.M.V. COLLEGIATE SR. SEC. SCHOOL, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue Department under consideration stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita Nos.622 & 623(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12

reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147 of the IT Act are held to be invalid. Further, it is seen from the record that even on merits, the claim of exemption u/s 10(23 C)(vi) of the IT Act has been allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT to the appellant in its order dated