THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022. 2. All the above appeals relating to four assessment years are almost on identical facts and common issues are involved and as such, for the sake of convenience, are taken up together and we take up assessment year 2013-14 as the lead case I.T.A. No. 513/Asr/2024. I.T.A. Nos. 513 to 516/Asr/2024

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022. 2. All the above appeals relating to four assessment years are almost on identical facts and common issues are involved and as such, for the sake of convenience, are taken up together and we take up assessment year 2013-14 as the lead case I.T.A. No. 513/Asr/2024. I.T.A. Nos. 513 to 516/Asr/2024

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022. 2. All the above appeals relating to four assessment years are almost on identical facts and common issues are involved and as such, for the sake of convenience, are taken up together and we take up assessment year 2013-14 as the lead case I.T.A. No. 513/Asr/2024. I.T.A. Nos. 513 to 516/Asr/2024

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022. 2. All the above appeals relating to four assessment years are almost on identical facts and common issues are involved and as such, for the sake of convenience, are taken up together and we take up assessment year 2013-14 as the lead case I.T.A. No. 513/Asr/2024. I.T.A. Nos. 513 to 516/Asr/2024

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

147 of the Act. 4. The facts of the case as per record are that in the reassessment proceedings, the statutory notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 22 March 2016 which was received back with postal comments refused. Subsequently the official of the department was sent on 14 April 2016 for service of notice

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

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

sections 149, 150(1) and 150(2). SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE BENCH 1. The ld.CIT(A) in his above findings, has apparently detracted from the core issue, which he was required to adjudicate by the Bench. In para 4.4 he has reproduced the entire findings of his predecessor as given in appellate order for AY 205-06, wherein it was concluded

SAINIK CO OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal issue as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14

14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 of India v. Ashish Agarwal, the date of issuance of the notice under SectipnJ48 would be 12.6.2022, whereas in the facts of the case the notice under Section 148 is issued on 21.7.2022 and as such the notice dated 30.6.2021 would be an invalid notice. In the result, the petition succeeds only on this ground

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

2 (24) of the Act. i. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment wrongly presuming that cash deposited in Bank a/c amounting to Rs.48,35,500.00/- has escaped assessment. AO proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income. The reassessment proceedings could not be resorted to unless there was reason to believe, rather than suspect, that income

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

2 (24) of the Act. i. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment wrongly presuming that cash deposited in Bank a/c amounting to Rs.48,35,500.00/- has escaped assessment. AO proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income. The reassessment proceedings could not be resorted to unless there was reason to believe, rather than suspect, that income

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

2 (24) of the Act. i. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment wrongly presuming that cash deposited in Bank a/c amounting to Rs.48,35,500.00/- has escaped assessment. AO proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income. The reassessment proceedings could not be resorted to unless there was reason to believe, rather than suspect, that income

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

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

iii). ITO Vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009; (iv). N.C Cables Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 649 (Del); and (v). Shri. Krishan Gopal. Prop. Kay Pee Lock Vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), Delhi (Delhi). In the backdrop of his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the ld AR that as the approval

JALALABAD SOLVEX PRIVATE LTD,JALALABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR-1, PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

iii 28-06- Notice under section 143(2) issued on Notice under 2021 Objections the 28/06/2021 providing the details of section 143(2) reopening reassessment of proceedings read with section assessment filed by 147 the assessee 8 I.T.A. No. 117/Asr/2024 Jalalabad Solvex Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT iv 08-12- Notice under The assessee has 2021 section 142(1) filed

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, [***], as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, [***], as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

2(40) of the Act, under the accepted canons of construction, wherever those words are used, the meaning given in the definition clause must be substituted. This has also to be considered in the light of the fact that at several places the assessment under s. 143 or s. 144 has been used in contradistinction with reassessment under s. 147

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

2(40) of the Act, under the accepted canons of construction, wherever those words are used, the meaning given in the definition clause must be substituted. This has also to be considered in the light of the fact that at several places the assessment under s. 143 or s. 144 has been used in contradistinction with reassessment under s. 147

SHRI SHISH PAL SINGH,JALANHDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4) JALANDHAR

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

2. Subsequently, vide his reply dated 4.8.2015, filed through the counsel of the assessee, the assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. After duly considering the objections raised by the assessee against initiation of proceedings u/s 147 / 148, a detailed order was passed on 17.8.2015 dealing with the objections