SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

147. Similar view held as under. (CIT vs Madhya bharat energy corporation 11-7-2011 (Delhi High court.) Tarsem Singla Vs CIT(Punjab & Haryana)/[2016] Punjab & Haryana) On service of notice u/s 148 R.K Upadhyaya vs Shanabhai P. Patel on 28 April, 1987- Once a notice is issued within the period of limitations, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Income

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

section 148 notice, to the effect that the original return be regarded as in response to the notice u/s. 148, is of little consequence. The same cannot in law be regarded as a return furnished in response to the notice u/s. 148 dated 30/3/2013, duly served; there being no challenge to its’ service; in fact, at any stage

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

reassess u/s. 147 is assumed upon issue of notice u/s. 148(1) consequent to the recording of reasons u/s. 148(2), and not its’ service (R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai B. Patel [1987] 166 ITR 163 (SC), also see 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

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

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

147 of the Act. This is submitted as required. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, M/s DMR Builders Pvt. Ltd. 7.1 Subsequently, in course of assessment proceedings various notices were issued u/s 142(1) , raising various queries and replies to such queries were made by the assessee, necessary directions issued by Additional CIT u/s 144A were considered, and after elaborate discussion

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

147 of the Act. This is submitted as required. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, M/s DMR Builders Pvt. Ltd. 7.1 Subsequently, in course of assessment proceedings various notices were issued u/s 142(1) , raising various queries and replies to such queries were made by the assessee, necessary directions issued by Additional CIT u/s 144A were considered, and after elaborate discussion

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

u/s 147 / 148 , against the assessee, (for which the assessee is not in appeal ), but he has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, on merits of the case allowing the appeal by observing as follows: “Legal contention: I have perused the assessment order and the submission made by the Appellant. The AO has issued notice under section

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

u/s 147 / 148 , against the assessee, (for which the assessee is not in appeal ), but he has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, on merits of the case allowing the appeal by observing as follows: “Legal contention: I have perused the assessment order and the submission made by the Appellant. The AO has issued notice under section

SMT. NIRMAL KAUR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), AMRITSAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 700/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

section of the Act are being initiated against him. As regards the claim of it (compliance of notice u/s. 148(1)) being made ‘under protest’ the same is nowhere borne out by the record. Further, what does the term ‘under protest’ signify or convey, i.e., in law. If it implies that the assessee reserves the right to object

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 21.12.2011 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 2. The appeal is delayed by a period of 87 days, having been filed on 29.08.2016 as against the due date of 03.06.2016. The condonation application dated 11.10.2016 explains the delay as on account of the assessee having moved

LATE SMT. MOHINI PURI THROUGH,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 76/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 149 provides for the time limitation for the reopening of assessment u/s. 147. The same is with reference to the issue of notice u/s. 148(1) and not its service. This forms the basis of the decisions cited by the ld. DR supra per his written submissions dated 13.7.2018 (copy on record). The issue in fact stands settled

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

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

JASWINDER SINGH BAINS ALIA JAZZY B,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was carried out at the residential premises of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Auluck, 136- Seth Hukum Chand Colony, Near DAV College, Jalandhar on 05.12.2012. During the course of search, certain loose documents were found and seized as per Annexure A-1 to A-5 to the Panchnama drawn at the conclusion

JASWINDER SINGH BAINS ALIA JAZZY B,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was carried out at the residential premises of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Auluck, 136- Seth Hukum Chand Colony, Near DAV College, Jalandhar on 05.12.2012. During the course of search, certain loose documents were found and seized as per Annexure A-1 to A-5 to the Panchnama drawn at the conclusion

JASWINDER SINGH BAINS ALIA JAZZY B,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was carried out at the residential premises of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Auluck, 136- Seth Hukum Chand Colony, Near DAV College, Jalandhar on 05.12.2012. During the course of search, certain loose documents were found and seized as per Annexure A-1 to A-5 to the Panchnama drawn at the conclusion

JASWINDER SINGH BAINS ALIA JAZZY B,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 337/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 338/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 339/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 340/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 341/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Jaswinder Singh Bains Alia Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Jazzy B, 10, Seiyu Complex, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Model Town, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amzps7517F Assessee By : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Jalandhar All Dated 14.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal In The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 Which Reads As Under: “That The Notice Issued U/S 153C For This Year, Not Being Consistent With The First Proviso To Section 153C, Is Illegal & The Consequential Order Under Appeal, Passed Thereupon Is Also Illegal.”

u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was carried out at the residential premises of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Auluck, 136- Seth Hukum Chand Colony, Near DAV College, Jalandhar on 05.12.2012. During the course of search, certain loose documents were found and seized as per Annexure A-1 to A-5 to the Panchnama drawn at the conclusion