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

250/- after providing benefit of Rs. 907,750/- being the receipts on account of sale of agricultural land in December 2008 and also taking the peak credit into consideration. 6. Ground No. 1 to 6 are interlinked to each other pertaining to the issues of validity of reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act; sanction

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

250/- after providing benefit of Rs. 907,750/- being the receipts on account of sale of agricultural land in December 2008 and also taking the peak credit into consideration. 6. Ground No. 1 to 6 are interlinked to each other pertaining to the issues of validity of reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act; sanction

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 permissible even if AO gathered reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment from the very same record which has been subject matter of completed asstt. n) 'Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar' [2004] 268 ITR 332/137 Taxman 479 (Bom.), The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are to be examined on a standalone basis and nothing

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

250 (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2006-07. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ITO, Ward-III(1), Jalandhar, (in brevity the ld. AO) order passed u/s 147/148 and 150 of the Act. I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 2 Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. The assessee has taken

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

250 of the Act 1961, dated 14.11.2024 which has emanated from the order of the AO, W-(86) (1), dated 23/05/2023, passed u/s 147/144 of the Act 61. 2. The grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 are as under: “1. That the CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition made

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

reassessment u/s 147 on the ground of AIR Information not being reflected in the return of Income, ignoring the clear position of the law that section 139(9) can only be used to rectify defects, if any in the return of income. 7. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case

KHURSHID AHMAD DAR,JAMMU AND KASHMIR, INDIA vs. ITO WARD, UDHAMPUR, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Blekhurshid Ahmad Dar Vs. Ito, Ward, Nully Poshwari Turkawangam, Udhampur Shopia, 192305, Jammu & Kashmir, India.Pin 192305. Pan No. Awmpd5664K Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp. Revenue By Mrs. Roshanta Kumari Meena, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025. Date Of Pronouncement To. [1 .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

250 of the CIT, is bonafide reasons for the delay of 171 days. We, accordingly, condone the delay of 171 days and admit the appeal on merits. 4 4. The assessee has raised additional legal grounds which were also raised in main grounds. One of the legal issue raised by the assessee is that the assessment framed under section 147

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the DCIT/ACIT, Circle-2, Bathinda passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 dated 29.12.2018. 2 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. That learned

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

250 sq. ft worth Rs. 1,01,25,000/-, therefore, his income of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) had escaped assessment, reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because

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

250 sq. ft worth Rs. 1,01,25,000/-, therefore, his income of Rs. 1,81,25,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”, for short) had escaped assessment, reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. Observing, that the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.06.2012 could not be served upon the assessee because

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

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the impugned assessment, having been framed pursuant to a document found in search of one M/s Movie Box Records Pvt Ltd. conducted on 05.12.2012, was assessable under section 153C and not under section

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. I.T.A. Nos. 182/Asr/2019 2 I.T.A. Nos. 183 & 184/Asr/2019 The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Central Circle, Jammu. (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.Only in ITA No. 184/Asr/2019, the order passed u/s

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. I.T.A. Nos. 182/Asr/2019 2 I.T.A. Nos. 183 & 184/Asr/2019 The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Central Circle, Jammu. (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.Only in ITA No. 184/Asr/2019, the order passed u/s

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act]. I.T.A. Nos. 182/Asr/2019 2 I.T.A. Nos. 183 & 184/Asr/2019 The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Central Circle, Jammu. (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.Only in ITA No. 184/Asr/2019, the order passed u/s

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case