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

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

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

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

undisclosed part of income Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors which has been unearthed during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act. The appellant has been palpably defiant and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking penal provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD 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

undisclosed income whichis found during the course of search or pursuant to searchor requisition. Therefore, only in I.T.A. Nos. 22/Asr/2020 36 &33 Others a case where theundisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminatingmaterial, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assessor reassess the total income for the entire six years blockassessment period even in case of completed/unabatedassessment

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD 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

undisclosed income whichis found during the course of search or pursuant to searchor requisition. Therefore, only in I.T.A. Nos. 22/Asr/2020 36 &33 Others a case where theundisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminatingmaterial, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assessor reassess the total income for the entire six years blockassessment period even in case of completed/unabatedassessment

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA 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

undisclosed income whichis found during the course of search or pursuant to searchor requisition. Therefore, only in I.T.A. Nos. 22/Asr/2020 36 &33 Others a case where theundisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminatingmaterial, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assessor reassess the total income for the entire six years blockassessment period even in case of completed/unabatedassessment

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD 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

undisclosed income whichis found during the course of search or pursuant to searchor requisition. Therefore, only in I.T.A. Nos. 22/Asr/2020 36 &33 Others a case where theundisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminatingmaterial, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assessor reassess the total income for the entire six years blockassessment period even in case of completed/unabatedassessment

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD 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

undisclosed income whichis found during the course of search or pursuant to searchor requisition. Therefore, only in I.T.A. Nos. 22/Asr/2020 36 &33 Others a case where theundisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminatingmaterial, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assessor reassess the total income for the entire six years blockassessment period even in case of completed/unabatedassessment

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA 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

undisclosed income whichis found during the course of search or pursuant to searchor requisition. Therefore, only in I.T.A. Nos. 22/Asr/2020 36 &33 Others a case where theundisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminatingmaterial, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assessor reassess the total income for the entire six years blockassessment period even in case of completed/unabatedassessment

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX 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

undisclosed income whichis found during the course of search or pursuant to searchor requisition. Therefore, only in I.T.A. Nos. 22/Asr/2020 36 &33 Others a case where theundisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminatingmaterial, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assessor reassess the total income for the entire six years blockassessment period even in case of completed/unabatedassessment