SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

2 nor can it interfere with the notice simply because on an overall reappraisal of material, a different opinion may be formed. e) Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO Under section 147 of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, wide power has been given

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

In the result, both the appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

2 nor can it interfere with the notice simply because on an overall reappraisal of material, a different opinion may be formed. e) Jawand Sons Vs. CIT 326 ITR 39 P&H Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO Under section 147 of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, wide power has been given

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

v. ITO particulars of the return without any new material. Even if proceedings under s. 143(2) are not taken, reassessment proceedings can be taken. h) Aditya and Co. Vs CIT 279 ITR 47 P&H In the case of an intimation under section 143(l)(a) of the Act the question of examination of the material by the Assessing

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

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

2) on 12.11.2014 served upon the assessee on 5 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO 13.11.2014 fixing the case for hearing on 20.11.2014. The case of the appellant company was adjourned on different dates at the request of the ld. counsel for the assessee company during the course of assessment proceedings by granting adjournment

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

2) for the purpose of issue of notice u/s. 148(1), stated two reasons to believe escapement of income chargeable to tax, as under: (PB pg. 9) (a) The assessee had claimed deduction on account of expenditure on ‘mobile repairs’ and on ‘recovery account’ at Rs.1,58,675 and Rs.1,96,636/- respectively. The repair expenses incurred during the warranty

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

u/s 148 dated 31-03-2021 received Return of income section 148 filed in response to the notice under section [DIN: TBA/AST/S/148/2020- 21/1032083993(1)] 148 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

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

u/s 151(2) obtained by the AO from JCIT. The sanction has been granted by writing the words ‘ yes, satisfied’. Page 66 of the paper-book. 5. The assessee did not raise the ground before CIT(A) agitating the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional grounds as well as admission

SH. VARINDER KUMAR SOUL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 451(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pan: Cvips 5218R

Section 143(2), per which the law provides for the said verification, and sec. 147, operate in different fields, even as explained in Vipan Khanna v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 220 (P&H). Be that as it may, there is equally no doubt that the AO had a valid reason to believe escapement from assessment qua rental income. The same

M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

47,44,901/-. 2. There is no other issue in the present case, because the receipts and expenses have been accepted by the department and regarding the genuineness of activity and aims and objects, there is no whisper in the order of Assessing Officer and meaning thereby, that if there would have been registration u/s 12A, then the surplus

LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPHATIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

47,44,901/-. 2. There is no other issue in the present case, because the receipts and expenses have been accepted by the department and regarding the genuineness of activity and aims and objects, there is no whisper in the order of Assessing Officer and meaning thereby, that if there would have been registration u/s 12A, then the surplus

M/S LORD MAHAVIR HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE & HOSPITAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

47,44,901/-. 2. There is no other issue in the present case, because the receipts and expenses have been accepted by the department and regarding the genuineness of activity and aims and objects, there is no whisper in the order of Assessing Officer and meaning thereby, that if there would have been registration u/s 12A, then the surplus

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

section 263 of the Act. 2. Ground of Appeal: The Worthy Pr. CIT is not justified on facts as well as on law in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.12.2017. The assessment order has been passed by the ld. A.O. after conducting necessary enquiries and after application of mind

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

section 263 of the Act. 2. Ground of Appeal: The Worthy Pr. CIT is not justified on facts as well as on law in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.12.2017. The assessment order has been passed by the ld. A.O. after conducting necessary enquiries and after application of mind

M/S. SHYAM LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER_II,, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

47 CCH 0197 (Ahd), is that as it has since been granted registration (i.e., on 20.01.2014 / copy on record), the assessment, setting aside the impugned order/s, be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the application of sections 11 and 12 of the Act in view of section 12A(2), which reads as under: ‘Conditions

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR vs. DR SHYAM LAL THAPAR NURSING HOME, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

47 CCH 0197 (Ahd), is that as it has since been granted registration (i.e., on 20.01.2014 / copy on record), the assessment, setting aside the impugned order/s, be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the application of sections 11 and 12 of the Act in view of section 12A(2), which reads as under: ‘Conditions

M/S SHYMA LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICERII, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

47 CCH 0197 (Ahd), is that as it has since been granted registration (i.e., on 20.01.2014 / copy on record), the assessment, setting aside the impugned order/s, be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the application of sections 11 and 12 of the Act in view of section 12A(2), which reads as under: ‘Conditions

SOM RAJ,PATHANKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATHANKOT

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

2. Succinctly stated, on the basis of the information in his possession that the assessee during the year under consideration had made cash ITA No. 628/Asr/2016 – A.Y 2010-11 3 Som Raj. Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pathankot deposits of Rs. 47 lac in his Saving Bank Account No. 1110 with Punjab Gramin Bank, Taragarh, the A.O reopened the case

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

47,11,318/- as against claimed by the assessee in respect of expenditure of Rs 77,65,67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income may, subject

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

47,11,318/- as against claimed by the assessee in respect of expenditure of Rs 77,65,67,171/-. Hence, deduction u/s 35AD of the Act has been claimed by the assessee wrongly. 6. As per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income may, subject