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

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

unexplained investment. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s 148 r.w.s 143(3), dated 30.03.2016 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 29,19,250/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O u/s 148 r.w.s 143(3), dated 30.03.2016 before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee assailed the validity

SHRIMATI. HARBHAJAN KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (20, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained investment as discussed above and also the income in respect of any issue which comes to the notice of the assessing officer during the course of proceedings under this section, chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2012-13 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Expl. 2(a) of section 147 of the Income

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

investment in purchase of agricultural land. c. Rs. 11,43,173/- on account of unexplained credit in the bank account. 3. The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the ground that during the course of assessment proceedings of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, it came to the notice of the AO that in A.Y. 2011-12 the assessee had purchased

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

unexplained investment. But then, on a careful perusal of the assessment order, we find, that the A.O had triggered the provisions of Sec. 69, for the reason, that the assessee had deposited the on-money in the bank accounts of her husband, viz. Shri. Kulwant Singh. However, as we have already vacated the view taken by the lower authorities that

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

unexplained investment. But then, on a careful perusal of the assessment order, we find, that the A.O had triggered the provisions of Sec. 69, for the reason, that the assessee had deposited the on-money in the bank accounts of her husband, viz. Shri. Kulwant Singh. However, as we have already vacated the view taken by the lower authorities that

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

Investments (P.) Ltd][Refer page 4-8of case law paper book] IT :Where Assessing Officer had issued a reassessment notice on basis of intimation from DDIT (Inv.) about a particular entity entering into suspicious transactions, this was clearly in breach of settled position in law that re- opening notice has to be issued by Assessing Officer

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

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

unexplained deposits within the meaning of Sec. 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

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

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

unexplained investment on account of cash deposits. 2.Addition of Rs 351216.00 as 8% of profits on balance credits u/s 44AD of the Act Further the entire re-assessment proceedings are bad in law, as no notice u/s 148 of the Act stands served on the assessee, besides the reopening is purely based on AIR information. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed

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 147 / 148 of the Act , subject to fulfilment of statutory conditions mentioned under the said sections are always saved. 15. This ground of appeal no – 4 is decided against the assessee. 16. Now, coming back to the remaining grounds of appeal: 17. First ground of appeal: The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in the instant case

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh