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

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 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

45 r.w Sec. 48 of the Act was liable to be brought to tax in his hands. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O vide his order passed u/ss. 144/147 of the Act, dated 18.03.2014 assessed the income (LTCG) of the assessee at Rs. 1,81,25,000/-. The A.O while culminating the assessment, observed, that involving identical

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

45 r.w Sec. 48 of the Act was liable to be brought to tax in his hands. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O vide his order passed u/ss. 144/147 of the Act, dated 18.03.2014 assessed the income (LTCG) of the assessee at Rs. 1,81,25,000/-. The A.O while culminating the assessment, observed, that involving identical

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

reassessment proceedings provided he has reasons to believe but the same cannot be taken recourse to on the basis of reasons to suspect-ITO & Ors, vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) relied on". Therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of the "reason" recorded is vitiated. Thus, the reasons

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

reassessment proceedings provided he has reasons to believe but the same cannot be taken recourse to on the basis of reasons to suspect-ITO & Ors, vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) relied on". Therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of the "reason" recorded is vitiated. Thus, the reasons

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings are also vitiated and quashed. 25. Since the appeal is allowed on this legal ground all other grounds on merits are not adjudicated upon. 26. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asstt. Year 2018-19 is allowed. 15 I.T.A. Nos. 585 & 586/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 586/Asr/2024

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal for the Asstt

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings are also vitiated and quashed. 25. Since the appeal is allowed on this legal ground all other grounds on merits are not adjudicated upon. 26. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asstt. Year 2018-19 is allowed. 15 I.T.A. Nos. 585 & 586/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 586/Asr/2024

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

45,661 6,69,57,561 receipts From the above chart, it is clear that the assessee company has performed not just the contracts of DRA but has also performed the other contracts as well of significant value. These figures demonstrate the sufficient financial capability to undertake such projects. 2.2. In the reply submitted under section

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

45,661 6,69,57,561 receipts From the above chart, it is clear that the assessee company has performed not just the contracts of DRA but has also performed the other contracts as well of significant value. These figures demonstrate the sufficient financial capability to undertake such projects. 2.2. In the reply submitted under section

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

4. The ground no 1 to 6 and 10 to 12 are inter-related to each other wherein the appellants challenged the addition made by the ld. Assessing Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors Officer and upheld by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alleged to be based on incriminating documents in contrary to the facts

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

4. The ground no 1 to 6 and 10 to 12 are inter-related to each other wherein the appellants challenged the addition made by the ld. Assessing Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors Officer and upheld by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alleged to be based on incriminating documents in contrary to the facts

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

4. The ground no 1 to 6 and 10 to 12 are inter-related to each other wherein the appellants challenged the addition made by the ld. Assessing Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors Officer and upheld by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alleged to be based on incriminating documents in contrary to the facts

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

4. The ground no 1 to 6 and 10 to 12 are inter-related to each other wherein the appellants challenged the addition made by the ld. Assessing Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors Officer and upheld by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alleged to be based on incriminating documents in contrary to the facts

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

4. The ground no 1 to 6 and 10 to 12 are inter-related to each other wherein the appellants challenged the addition made by the ld. Assessing Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors Officer and upheld by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alleged to be based on incriminating documents in contrary to the facts

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

4. The ground no 1 to 6 and 10 to 12 are inter-related to each other wherein the appellants challenged the addition made by the ld. Assessing Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors Officer and upheld by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alleged to be based on incriminating documents in contrary to the facts

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

4. The ground no 1 to 6 and 10 to 12 are inter-related to each other wherein the appellants challenged the addition made by the ld. Assessing Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors Officer and upheld by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alleged to be based on incriminating documents in contrary to the facts

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

4. The ground no 1 to 6 and 10 to 12 are inter-related to each other wherein the appellants challenged the addition made by the ld. Assessing Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors Officer and upheld by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alleged to be based on incriminating documents in contrary to the facts