THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022. 2. All the above appeals relating to four assessment years are almost on identical facts and common issues are involved and as such, for the sake of convenience, are taken up together and we take up assessment year 2013-14 as the lead case I.T.A. No. 513/Asr/2024. I.T.A. Nos. 513 to 516/Asr/2024

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022. 2. All the above appeals relating to four assessment years are almost on identical facts and common issues are involved and as such, for the sake of convenience, are taken up together and we take up assessment year 2013-14 as the lead case I.T.A. No. 513/Asr/2024. I.T.A. Nos. 513 to 516/Asr/2024

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

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. Copy of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act and for obtaining the approval of the JCIT

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

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. Copy of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of ITA No. 628/Asr/2016

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56 to 58/ASR/2019 and 60 to 63/ASR/2019 in respect of the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, in mutatis mutandis. 26. The additional ground and the Ground No. 7,8 and 9 are legal ground, challenging the validity of assessment proceedings under section u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVTE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also

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

56,950/- upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Worthy CIT(A) impugned addition made purely Act on the basis of books of accounts and during the year under consideration assessee company has not made any cash purchases from the parties mentioned in the impugned order, copy of ledger account was also