M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that the ld. AR of the assessee has furnished a copy of interim order dated 11/04/1996 in the above writ petitions. In this order of Hon'ble Court, it has been mentioned "Stay to continue'. It appears that stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that the ld. AR of the assessee has furnished a copy of interim order dated 11/04/1996 in the above writ petitions. In this order of Hon'ble Court, it has been mentioned "Stay to continue'. It appears that stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that the ld. AR of the assessee has furnished a copy of interim order dated 11/04/1996 in the above writ petitions. In this order of Hon'ble Court, it has been mentioned "Stay to continue'. It appears that stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that the ld. AR of the assessee has furnished a copy of interim order dated 11/04/1996 in the above writ petitions. In this order of Hon'ble Court, it has been mentioned "Stay to continue'. It appears that stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that the ld. AR of the assessee has furnished a copy of interim order dated 11/04/1996 in the above writ petitions. In this order of Hon'ble Court, it has been mentioned "Stay to continue'. It appears that stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that the ld. AR of the assessee has furnished a copy of interim order dated 11/04/1996 in the above writ petitions. In this order of Hon'ble Court, it has been mentioned "Stay to continue'. It appears that stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

148 was issued on 04/08/1994 or later as per chart attached. Further argued that the ld. AR of the assessee has furnished a copy of interim order dated 11/04/1996 in the above writ petitions. In this order of Hon'ble Court, it has been mentioned "Stay to continue'. It appears that stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court

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

transferred by the assessee to the M/s Devinder Kumar Deepesh Kumar ,as an accommodation entry for recording of bogus purchase, because 4 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 as per the AO the physical movement of goods could not be proved, in absence of any Bilty, weighment slip of goods, octroi receipts, and in absence of any proof

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

148. As the Principal Commissioner agreed with these reasons, it was not necessary for him in his order according sanction to reiterate the reasons furnished by the AO. There is nothing that indicates that he did not apply his mind to the reasons furnished by the AO. 45. Reasons to believe are there. The reasons are based on tangible material

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

transfer of long term securities (Penny stock shares) - Assessment year 2014-\n15 - Whether before exercise of power under section 263 it is Principal Commissioner\nwho has to apply its mind to issue and thereafter record reasons as to how twin conditions\nof order of Assessing Officer being erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue are\nsatisfied and then issue

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

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

price mentioned on the said document. In this AR had submitted that, appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, 3.7. denied the charge of the Learned Assessing Officer that the said property was actually sold for Rs. 11.25 crores on the following grounds: i) The assessee does not know the source of the purported alleged documents in the possession

SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

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

price mentioned on the said document. In this AR had submitted that, appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, 3.7. denied the charge of the Learned Assessing Officer that the said property was actually sold for Rs. 11.25 crores on the following grounds: i) The assessee does not know the source of the purported alleged documents in the possession

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

148. In response to the notice the Assessee filed Return of Income on 27.04.2019 declaring agricultural income of Rs.1,92,580/- and nil taxable income. 3.1 The Assessing Officer on scrutinising the sale deeds of the land sold by the Assessee noted that the land is mentioned as being agricultural. However, the Assessee had filed complained against the purchaser with

SHRI SURINDER SINGH DECEASED,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora

148(1) on 26.3.2009, his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur, filed a reply dated 08.12.2009 (through her counsel, Sh. Nagpal), reproduced at page 3 of the assessment order, stating to be not aware of any such bank account of her late husband and, in any case, of any such money belonging to him, or of any property purchased by, or belonging

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED , TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

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

section 151 of the Act." Notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act,1961 was issued on 30.03.2018 and served on assessee on 30.03.2018. In response to the notice u/s 148, assessee e-filed his return on 26.12.2018 at a income of Rs. 77,66,950/-. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 15.10.2018, fixing the case for hearing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED, TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

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

section 151 of the Act." Notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act,1961 was issued on 30.03.2018 and served on assessee on 30.03.2018. In response to the notice u/s 148, assessee e-filed his return on 26.12.2018 at a income of Rs. 77,66,950/-. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 15.10.2018, fixing the case for hearing

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S KAISER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 381/Asr./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Kaiser Industries Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-1, Jammu Industrial Growth Centre, Sidco, Samba (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabck0456G Assessee By : Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Yashender Garg, Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu Dated 31.03.2016. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ib(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Samba Unit As The Same Was Claimed To Inflate The Profit Of Eligible Unit For The Motive Of Availing Deduction U/S 80Ib.

148 of the Act for the reason that a sum of Rs.51,07,624/- on account of Excise duty refund on which deduction u/s 80IB of the Act has been claimed does not qualify for such deduction. The assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act was passed on 26.03.2013 and the claim of deductions of Rs.2

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

148 and initiation of proceedings under s. 147 were illegal-No substantial question of law arises for consideration" Further reliance is placed on the decision of ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das, Supreme Court, 103 ITR 0437 in which it was held s under: "Reassessment under sec 147(a)-Reason to believe-Must have a material bearing on the question