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

271, in support of sanction granted by the PCIT u/s 151 of the Act. 9. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and considered the written submission of the assessee and the citations relied upon by both the sides. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has recorded reasons u/s 147 of Income Tax Act stating that there were cash

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

271, in support of sanction granted by the PCIT u/s 151 of the Act. 9. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and considered the written submission of the assessee and the citations relied upon by both the sides. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has recorded reasons u/s 147 of Income Tax Act stating that there were cash

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR 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. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR 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,MUKTSAR 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,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- 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

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR 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,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

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR 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

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

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

reassessment are held to be devoid of any merits and substance and therefore, same are as such rejected. 12. In ground no. 3 & 4, the assessee has challenged approval granted by the CIT u/s 151 for issuing notice u/s 147 as bad in law. This issue of approval granted u/s 151 of the Income

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

147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section.]” Insofar the mode and manner of service of a notice issued under Sec. 148 of the Act is concerned, the same can be traced in Sec. 282 of the Act and Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which reads as under : “282 (1) The service

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

147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section.]” Insofar the mode and manner of service of a notice issued under Sec. 148 of the Act is concerned, the same can be traced in Sec. 282 of the Act and Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which reads as under : “282 (1) The service

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

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