AMBEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BATHINDA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfa7199K

147 to re-open the assessment and passing the impugned reassessment order, more so when such jurisdiction could not be assumed in law and reassessment order could not be passed in law, inter-alia for the following reasons: a) Because the objections to the re-opening were not disposed. b) Because the jurisdiction was assumed qua non-existent entity

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof 6. That while confirming

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

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

Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof 6. That while confirming

SMT. ASHA CHHABRA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the ground no

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated to verify the source of investment in the purchase of plot and construction of house. Hence, the reasons to believe as recorded by the AO were infact reasons to suspect. d) The finding of the CIT(A) in para-3.2 that "At the stage of notice, it is 'the believe' of the AO based on facts

SH. JOGINDER SINGH S/O. SH. GURDIAL SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

147 of the act. The section 150(1) of the act states that Notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or recomputation in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed

SHRI GULZAR AHMAD DAR ,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

91,20,964/- in his saving bank account no. xxxx000011 maintained with Jammu & Kashmir Bank but did not file his return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17. Accordingly, the case was re-opened and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2023. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

91,62,368/-) in the name of the aforementioned parties viz. (i). M/s Balaji Impex : Rs. 1,48,08,138/- ; and (ii). M/s S.K Impex : Rs. 60,42,864/-. On the basis of verifications carried out by the A.O u/s 133(6) of the Act, it stood revealed that the assessee had not made any genuine purchases from the aforesaid

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

91,62,368/-) in the name of the aforementioned parties viz. (i). M/s Balaji Impex : Rs. 1,48,08,138/- ; and (ii). M/s S.K Impex : Rs. 60,42,864/-. On the basis of verifications carried out by the A.O u/s 133(6) of the Act, it stood revealed that the assessee had not made any genuine purchases from the aforesaid

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

91,62,368/-) in the name of the aforementioned parties viz. (i). M/s Balaji Impex : Rs. 1,48,08,138/- ; and (ii). M/s S.K Impex : Rs. 60,42,864/-. On the basis of verifications carried out by the A.O u/s 133(6) of the Act, it stood revealed that the assessee had not made any genuine purchases from the aforesaid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

91,62,368/-) in the name of the aforementioned parties viz. (i). M/s Balaji Impex : Rs. 1,48,08,138/- ; and (ii). M/s S.K Impex : Rs. 60,42,864/-. On the basis of verifications carried out by the A.O u/s 133(6) of the Act, it stood revealed that the assessee had not made any genuine purchases from the aforesaid

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

reassessment under s. 147. We also do not find anything in the context of s. 273 which would require the words 'regular assessment' to be given a meaning different from the one given by the legislature when these words were defined." 25. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by Chandurkar J. Moreover, there is another aspect to this case

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

reassessment under s. 147. We also do not find anything in the context of s. 273 which would require the words 'regular assessment' to be given a meaning different from the one given by the legislature when these words were defined." 25. I respectfully agree with the views expressed by Chandurkar J. Moreover, there is another aspect to this case

MANDEEP SINGH S/O SH. NARINDER SINGH VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE TARMALA MALOUT DISTRICT MUKTSAR,MUKTSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5) MUKTSAR JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

u/s 148 is not proper. b) There was no document or any other information in the file of the AO, on account of which the AO shall had formed his reason to believe. The whole exercise I.T.A. No. 645/Asr/2024 8 Assessment Year: 2012-13 of re-opening of the case is based upon the information from the Investigation Wing

SHRI GURBINDER SINGH MAHAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV ( 2), AMRITSAR

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

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

u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee submitted all the relevant documents with application under Rule 46A of Income tax Rule,1962 for filing the additional evidence before the appellate authority. The detail of submission before the appellate authority is extracted as below: “6. That the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CIT(A) on 10.03.2017 against

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act Dt. 12.09.2021 in which the income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs. 71,03,069/- while making the addition of Rs. 43,39,999/-. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred on facts and law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee, vide order u/s

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact that there was no incriminating material pertaining to this assessee

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact that there was no incriminating material pertaining to this assessee

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

91. The view of the Delhi High Court in this case has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the SLP of the revenue was dismissed and stands reported at 380 ITR 64 (Statute). Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 92. In view of the fact that there was no incriminating material pertaining to this assessee