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

b) That the surrender was made by the appellant in the Assessment Year 2014-15 on the directions of the department. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as valid, though proceedings under section 147

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

b) That the surrender was made by the appellant in the Assessment Year 2014-15 on the directions of the department. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as valid, though proceedings under section 147

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

b) That the surrender was made by the appellant in the Assessment Year 2014-15 on the directions of the department. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as valid, though proceedings under section 147

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

b) That the surrender was made by the appellant in the Assessment Year 2014-15 on the directions of the department. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as valid, though proceedings under section 147

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

b) That the surrender was made by the appellant in the Assessment Year 2014-15 on the directions of the department. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as valid, though proceedings under section 147

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

b) That the surrender was made by the appellant in the Assessment Year 2014-15 on the directions of the department. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as valid, though proceedings under section 147

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

b) That the surrender was made by the appellant in the Assessment Year 2014-15 on the directions of the department. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as valid, though proceedings under section 147

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

b) That the surrender was made by the appellant in the Assessment Year 2014-15 on the directions of the department. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as valid, though proceedings under section 147

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

b) That the surrender was made by the appellant in the Assessment Year 2014-15 on the directions of the department. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as valid, though proceedings under section 147

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

b) That the surrender was made by the appellant in the Assessment Year 2014-15 on the directions of the department. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as valid, though proceedings under section 147

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

b) A.L.A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reassess income arises if he has, in consequence of specific and relevant information coming into his possession subsequent to the previous concluded assessment, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. It was held that even if the information

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

b) A.L.A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC) The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reassess income arises if he has, in consequence of specific and relevant information coming into his possession subsequent to the previous concluded assessment, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. It was held that even if the information

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

147 of the Act. This is submitted as required. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, M/s DMR Builders Pvt. Ltd. 7.1 Subsequently, in course of assessment proceedings various notices were issued u/s 142(1) , raising various queries and replies to such queries were made by the assessee, necessary directions issued by Additional CIT u/s 144A were considered, and after elaborate discussion

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

147 of the Act. This is submitted as required. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, M/s DMR Builders Pvt. Ltd. 7.1 Subsequently, in course of assessment proceedings various notices were issued u/s 142(1) , raising various queries and replies to such queries were made by the assessee, necessary directions issued by Additional CIT u/s 144A were considered, and after elaborate discussion

SAINIK COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,SAINIK COLONY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD-1, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2023. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 701 & 406/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows in ITA No. 701/Asr/2024: “1. That the CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition made

SAINIK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2023. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 701 & 406/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows in ITA No. 701/Asr/2024: “1. That the CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition made

SH. MANGAT TREHAN ,HOSHIARPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 223/Asr/2019 is 10

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

271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were also initiated. 3. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order and (he Ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed in appeal No. 447/09-10/CIT(A)/Jal, allowed I.T.A. No. 223/Asr/2019 6 relief of Rs.26,19.862'- to the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs. 27,28,351/- made