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

u/s 148 was issued on 21.03.2016 to the assessee through the registered post Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO and it was not served upon the assessee and the service of notice is preconditioned for validity of the reassessment proceedings. It is noted that the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act send through registered post

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

u/s 148 was issued on 21.03.2016 to the assessee through the registered post Manjit Kaur & Baljinder Singh v. ITO and it was not served upon the assessee and the service of notice is preconditioned for validity of the reassessment proceedings. It is noted that the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act send through registered post

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

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

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

2 of appeal challenging therein validity of reasons and 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

M/S LORD MAHAVIR HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE & HOSPITAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

45 to 49 (page 1 of the paper book). On the basis of the above, it was submitted that the assessee has completed all the requisite applications and nothing was required to be done as at the end of the assessee. I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 14 17. Further, during the argument the assessee has submitted that

LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPHATIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

45 to 49 (page 1 of the paper book). On the basis of the above, it was submitted that the assessee has completed all the requisite applications and nothing was required to be done as at the end of the assessee. I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 14 17. Further, during the argument the assessee has submitted that

M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

45 to 49 (page 1 of the paper book). On the basis of the above, it was submitted that the assessee has completed all the requisite applications and nothing was required to be done as at the end of the assessee. I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 14 17. Further, during the argument the assessee has submitted that

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

2. Succinctly stated, on 27.04.2007, the Defence Services Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Mohali (“Society”, for short) of which the assessee is a member, had entered into a tripartite Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”, for short) with M/s Hash Builders Private Limited AND M/s Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. (“THDC”, for short). As per the tripartite agreement, it was agreed

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

2. Succinctly stated, on 27.04.2007, the Defence Services Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Mohali (“Society”, for short) of which the assessee is a member, had entered into a tripartite Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”, for short) with M/s Hash Builders Private Limited AND M/s Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. (“THDC”, for short). As per the tripartite agreement, it was agreed

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

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 Of Income Tax Vs. MintuKalita High Court Of Gauhati (2001) 170 CTR (Gau) 149: (2002) 253 ITR 334 (Gau) : (2001) 117 Taxman

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors for recording of satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals