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

section 10 of the Act;] , (b) for communications delivered or transmitted electronically:- (i) email address available in the income-tax return furnished by the addressee to which the communication relates; or (ii) the email address available in the last income-tax return furnished by the addressee; or (iii) in the case of addressee being a company, email address

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

section 10 of the Act;] , (b) for communications delivered or transmitted electronically:- (i) email address available in the income-tax return furnished by the addressee to which the communication relates; or (ii) the email address available in the last income-tax return furnished by the addressee; or (iii) in the case of addressee being a company, email address

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

Section 147 (a) of the Act the Act. (2) If satisfaction is arrived at on the basis of any relevant material, such satisfaction cannot be assailed, Tilak raj bedi vs JCIT (2009) 319 ITR 385-P&H- The power of reassessment can be validly exercised if satisfaction is arrived at after following due procedure that income had escaped assessment. Such

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.:

147 is bad in law as the notice under section 148 was issued on 13.04.2021 without adheringto the new procedure applicable from 01.04.2021, specifically without complying with the provisions of section 148A. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2021, was issued on 13.04.2021, as contended

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

41 ITR 191. Thus, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 cannot be done for the purpose of making any enquiry or to verify any information available with the department. Further AO has merely relied on the information passed on to him by the Investigation Department. There is nothing to reveal application of mind by the AO to the information

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

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

41 ITR 191. Thus, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 cannot be done for the purpose of making any enquiry or to verify any information available with the department. Further AO has merely relied on the information passed on to him by the Investigation Department. There is nothing to reveal application of mind by the AO to the information

SHRIMATI. HARBHAJAN KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (20, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

41 case laws. b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. LaxmiNarain High Court Of Punjab & Haryana (2008) 1 DTR (P&H) 209: (2008) 168 Taxman 128. Pg. 42 to 45 case laws. c) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mani Kakar High Court Of Delhi (2009) 18 DTR (Del) 145 : (2009) 178 Taxman 315 Pg. 46 to 48 case laws. d) Commissioner

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

section 263 of the Act. 2. Ground of Appeal: The Worthy Pr. CIT is not justified on facts as well as on law in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.12.2017. The assessment order has been passed by the ld. A.O. after conducting necessary enquiries and after application of mind

KAISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SRINAGAR

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

section 263 of the Act. 2. Ground of Appeal: The Worthy Pr. CIT is not justified on facts as well as on law in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.12.2017. The assessment order has been passed by the ld. A.O. after conducting necessary enquiries and after application of mind

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

41 3. Sh. Chhugamal Rajpal 110-115 110 4. Omkam Developers Ltd. 116-140 127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

41 3. Sh. Chhugamal Rajpal 110-115 110 4. Omkam Developers Ltd. 116-140 127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

41 3. Sh. Chhugamal Rajpal 110-115 110 4. Omkam Developers Ltd. 116-140 127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3). All the provisions were duly complied with. As such, no disallowance was called for and similarly the worthy CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same without appreciating the facts of the case. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive. 8. Further, the A.O has grossly erred in not allowing the deduction claimed

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

reassess takinginto consideration the other material in respect ofcompleted assessments/unabated assessments.Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabatedassessments, no addition can be made by the AO inabsence of any incriminating material found during thecourse of search under Section 132 or requisition underSection 132A of the Act, 1961. However, thecompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened bythe AO in exercise of powers under Sections

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

reassess takinginto consideration the other material in respect ofcompleted assessments/unabated assessments.Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabatedassessments, no addition can be made by the AO inabsence of any incriminating material found during thecourse of search under Section 132 or requisition underSection 132A of the Act, 1961. However, thecompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened bythe AO in exercise of powers under Sections