SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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 KASHMIR SINGH S/O SHRI SHINGARA SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), AMRITSAR

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

iii) that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was never received by the assessee prior to framing of the reassessment in question; and (iv) that the AO had taken recourse to parallel assessment proceedings and, by issuing two separate notices u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee, both of which were backed by separate ‘reasons to believe’ wrongly

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,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,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

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) observed that he had while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2009-10 had upheld the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction that involving identical facts was raised

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) observed that he had while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2009-10 had upheld the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction that involving identical facts was raised

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) observed that he had while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2009-10 had upheld the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction that involving identical facts was raised

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

147, dated 26.03.2013 had in the mean time again disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) observed that he had while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2009-10 had upheld the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction that involving identical facts was raised

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

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

u/s 143(3) dated 20/12/2017. 3. The A.O. relied solely upon the sale deed dated 15.07.1981 for computing the FMV of the land as on 01.04.1981 for the purpose of computation of capital gain. The copy of the subject sale deed dated 15.07.1981 was neither provided nor confronted to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings

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

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

u/s 143(3) dated 20/12/2017. 3. The A.O. relied solely upon the sale deed dated 15.07.1981 for computing the FMV of the land as on 01.04.1981 for the purpose of computation of capital gain. The copy of the subject sale deed dated 15.07.1981 was neither provided nor confronted to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings

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)

iii).Shri Raj Kumar Goel Vs. ITO ITA No.1028/Kol/2017 (referred to page 5-8 para 11) (iv).Classic Flour & Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT ITA Nos. 764 to 766/Kol/2014 (page 7 para 12 to 16) v).PCIT Vs. Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd. (2018) 93 taxmann.com 153 (Bom) page 4 para 12 to 14) vi).KSS Petron

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5),, KATRA vs. SH. CHAIN SINGH, KATRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhryassessment Year:2010-11

14 rooms only whereas spot enquiries conducted by them confirmed that M/s Thakur Guest House was having 25 rooms. In view of this provision of section 147 were invoked in your case after seeking approval from the competent authority." 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) categorically held that there is no dispute that the assessment in this case was reopened u/s

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

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

reassessment proceeding holding that the assessee could not substantiate the source of investment made by the assessee. We have also gone through the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer/ITO, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur for reopening and the approval thereof by the Ld. Jt. CIT, Range-III, Ferozepur and found that the AO has not applied his mind