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 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

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

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

250(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that in the instant case the Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act and ultimately made certain additions and computed total gross income of the assessee at Rs.1

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

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, if the twin conditions prescribed under section 147 of the Act are satisfied. The grounds of appeal are dismissed. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and also moved an application for admission of additional evidences stating therein as under: Sub: Assessment Year

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, if the twin conditions prescribed under section 147 of the Act are satisfied. The grounds of appeal are dismissed. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and also moved an application for admission of additional evidences stating therein as under: Sub: Assessment Year

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

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

u/s 147. In this regard,your attention is drawn to the following case laws which are self speaking and establish beyond doubt that the proceedings in this case have been rightly initiated:- 1. Ropar district co-op milk producers union ltd Vs CIT [2009]311 ITR 42 (P & H) Reassessment- discovery of new and important facts not present

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

SH. KARAMJIT SINGH RAI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) whereby the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment dated 02.11.2017 framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: An information was received in AIR from the Tehsildar, to the effect that the assessee had purchased a land situated

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

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

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