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

section 147 of the act. Thus, ground numbers 3, 5 and 6 of the appellant assessee are rejected. 12. In ground No. 7 to 10 the appellant challenged that the amount deposited was out of sale proceeds of Agricultural land of HUF and the AO has committed an error in reopening the case of individuals/appellant and hence the reassessment

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

section 147 of the act. Thus, ground numbers 3, 5 and 6 of the appellant assessee are rejected. 12. In ground No. 7 to 10 the appellant challenged that the amount deposited was out of sale proceeds of Agricultural land of HUF and the AO has committed an error in reopening the case of individuals/appellant and hence the reassessment

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

147 of the Act. 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

SHRI RAMESH KUMAR ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

section 55(2)(b) and 55A of Income Tax Act, respectively before calculating the Capital Gain and order of A.O require to be set-a-side. 10. That the Id.CIT(A) has erred in law, as well as ,on facts by holding the land in question as individual land by ignoring land revenue record and further ignored that neither such

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 147 of the Income Tax Act is confirmed.” 8 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO 5. The Ld. AR for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the actions of the AO of additions made u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of unexplained credits found in the books

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

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

reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated under section 147 for the purpose of enquiry and verification. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of-the case, CIT did not recorded satisfaction under Section 151 for issuing notice under Section 147. 4. Without prejudice, no approval has been obtained from the component authority as required u/s 151. Hence the notice

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal issue as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14

5) TMI 722 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Other Citation: 2025:BHC - GOA:868 - DB GURPREET SINGH VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ) Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - period of limitation - notices issued u/s 148 of the old regime - HELD THAT:- A notice under Section 148 of the IT Act accompanied by an order under Section 148A (d) is required

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

5. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by not declaring reassessment u/s 147 made on the basis of standalone AIR Information bad in law. 6. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by upholding reassessment u/s 147 on the ground of AIR Information

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

147 within the period prescribed under section 149 read with section 150 of the Act. We are fortified in our view by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. M. Sharma v. ITO [2002] 254 ITR 772 wherein the Apex Court had considered the amendment made in sub-section (1) of section

SHRI HARJINDER SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

5 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10 sought for admission of the copies of the sale deeds and the bank a/c of Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) as additional evidence. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) had during the course of the assessment proceedings declined

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

reassessment, therefore, the same not having been so done by the A.O in the present case, rendered the assessment framed by him u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 18.03.2014 as invalid. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (“D.R”, for short) supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the A.O had validly

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

reassessment, therefore, the same not having been so done by the A.O in the present case, rendered the assessment framed by him u/s 144 r.w.s 147, dated 18.03.2014 as invalid. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (“D.R”, for short) supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the A.O had validly

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

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 dated 29.12.2018. 2 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. That learned CIT(A) has arbitrarily upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings on the facts & circumstances of the case only on basis of report

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

SHRI SHISH PAL SINGH,JALANHDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4) JALANDHAR

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

5. As per the facts of the case, a search operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 5.12.2012 in the group of cases (Punjab folk singer). During the search at the business premises of M/s Movie Box Records Pvt. Ltd, 10, Seiyu Complex, Jalandhar, a loose document was found and seized as page

SOM RAJ,PATHANKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATHANKOT

Bench: Shri. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

5 Som Raj. Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pathankot believe” had stated that the approval for reopening of the assessee’s case was to be taken from the Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), Range-VI, Pathankot, it was submitted by the ld AR, that the approval was wrongly obtained, as the appropriate authority as per Section

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

u/s 2 (24) of the Act. i. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment wrongly presuming that cash deposited in Bank a/c amounting to Rs.48,35,500.00/- has escaped assessment. AO proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income. The reassessment proceedings could not be resorted to unless there was reason to believe, rather than suspect, that income

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

u/s 2 (24) of the Act. i. The Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment wrongly presuming that cash deposited in Bank a/c amounting to Rs.48,35,500.00/- has escaped assessment. AO proceeded on fallacious assumption that bank deposits constituted undisclosed income. The reassessment proceedings could not be resorted to unless there was reason to believe, rather than suspect, that income