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

147 of Income Tax Act. The observation of the AO that all cash deposits in the bank account may not be the income of the assessee and therefore any assumption that it has escaped assessment would be fallacious has to also at the same time need to be considered from the viewpoint that if a large cash has been deposited

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

147 on 23.05.2023 is bad in law since, the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 on 25.07.2022 is bad in law. 5. That the CIT(A) has erred in not taking cognizance of the details of receipts and expenditure furnished in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 whereby it was made clear that receipts

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

69A, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money (Cash) - Assessment year 2012-13 - One of Directors of assessee company namely 'A' was carrying Rs. 5 lakhs from Delhi to Ghaziabad for payment of wages and other normal expenses - 'A' was stopped by UP Police on border of Delhi and said cash was seized - On basis

MAJOR SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 143(2), in such a case, thus, is only toward provision of providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to states it’s case where a return is filed by the assessee, i..e, in response to notice u/s.148(1), which is the ratio of the decision in Ram Narain Bansal (supra); Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. (supra

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

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

69A of the Act, and added the same to his returned income. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, dated 19.12.2016 assessed the income of the assesse at an amount of Rs. 64,36,460/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, finding no infirmity

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.:

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the assessment framed under section 147 is bad in law as the notice under section 148 was issued on 13.04.2021 without adhering to the new procedure applicable from 01.04.2021, specifically without complying with the provisions of section 148A. 3. That the CIT(E) has erred in upholding the addition made

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

147 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144r.w.s 147of the Income tax Act and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s

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

147 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 144r.w.s 147of the Income tax Act and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s

CHAND JEWELLERS,NAKODAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 574/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chand Jewellers, Bazar Sarafan Vs. Ito-Ward Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [Pan:-Aahfc5908J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Bajaj, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, vide order dated 29.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as under: I.T.A. No. 574/Asr/2025 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 “1. That the impugned appellate order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, upholding the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income

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

147 are void ab-initio as notice under section 148 was never served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income