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

u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act: 7. It is well settled in law that reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor anything can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

reassessment proceedings. The assessee furnished the written submission which had been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.1 of the impugned order and read as under: In the above stated Grounds of Appeal the assessee has challenged the validity of proceedings u/s 147/148 & the submissions of the assessee are as under;- (i) The notice u/s

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

reassessment proceedings. The assessee furnished the written submission which had been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.1 of the impugned order and read as under: In the above stated Grounds of Appeal the assessee has challenged the validity of proceedings u/s 147/148 & the submissions of the assessee are as under;- (i) The notice u/s

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

3. In Ground No. 1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 cannot be done for the purpose of enquiry or verification is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. The appellant assessee company’s case was reopened by issuing notice u/s

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 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30.03.2014 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09. 2. The appeal challenges the impugned order on the twin aspects on which the ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment, i.e., (i) that the reopening is invalid as a notice u/s. 148(1), issued

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

3 of the assessment order ) and after recording reasons ( para – 4 of order ) necessary approval obtained from higher authorities and proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act . 14. As such in the instant case the AO was perfectly justified in proceeding u/s 147 / 148 , because there are no incriminating materials seized from Mr. Hitesh Jain, which 8 I.T.A

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act and, accordingly, disclosed all the material facts before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also competed the assessment by accepting the income returned after 12 I.T.A. No. 363/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 examination of all the submission of the appellant. Thus, once the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed

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

3) It is further held that - belief can be reached in any manner, and is not qualified by a precondition of faith and true disclosure of material facts by the assessee as contemplated in the pre amended Section 147(a) of the Act. (Jawand Sons vs CIT 18 November, 2009(P&H) (4) It is also held that satisfaction arrived

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

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

189 (Del) and CIT v. C. Palaniappan [2011] 55 DTR 81 (Mad), that the reassessment proceedings could not be struck down on the basis of the claim of non-receipt of notice u/s. 148 where the assessee had complied with the notice u/s. 148(1). The raising of the objection of the service by the assessee, which he does

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

189 to 194 of judgment set. V. Judgment of Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Smt. Charanjit Kaurreported in 88 ITR (Trib.) 414 copy placed at pages 195 to 199 of judgment set. 15. Thus, wrong reason to believe have been formed to initiate the proceedings u/s 148 as, there is no nexus with the formation

MR. GHULAM NABI BEIGH,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 538/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

3 Ghulam Nabi Beigh v. ITO submission of the assessee in the matter. The assessee’s plea is patently inconsistent with the law and, therefore, without merit, and accordingly dismissed. 4. The assessee’s second ground assails the reasons recorded u/s. 148(2), claiming that the AO had failed to link the FDRs with the return of income as filed