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

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 which was received

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

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

4. The assessee after receipt of the reasons to believe, filed the objection vide letter dated 10th of July 2017 mentioning therein that, the assessment proceedings of the assessee were completed under section 143 (3) of the Act, and the entire transaction of the assessee was examined by the assessing officer, therefore in view of first proviso of section 147

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

147 r.w.s 148 of the Act on the basis that the assessee had introduced capital in the firm M/s G.S. Chahal & Associates by way of transfer of his ancestral land measuring 46 Kanals 15 marla for Rs. 4,09,06,250/- and that the entire land transferred to the firm was situated in the municipal limit of Mansa. Hence

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

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

147 r.w.s 148 of the Act on the basis that the assessee had introduced capital in the firm M/s G.S. Chahal & Associates by way of transfer of his ancestral land measuring 46 Kanals 15 marla for Rs. 4,09,06,250/- and that the entire land transferred to the firm was situated in the municipal limit of Mansa. Hence

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

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

M/S. PUNJAB IRON & STEEL COMPANY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

250(4), the AO issued letter to the assessee only and not further efforts were made by him. The assessee has proved the existence of the depositor, filed her PAN No. and affidavit and copy of bank account in which the amount has been received by the assessee. Assessee having complied with its onus, should not be punished for failure

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

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

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