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

3) in view of explanation 1 (ii) of section 153. In this connection, it is submitted that the section 153 (2) stood as under as on 01/04/1994, the year in which the notice u/s 148 was issued: "[(2) No order of assessment, reassessment or re-computation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of two years from

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

3) in view of explanation 1 (ii) of section 153. In this connection, it is submitted that the section 153 (2) stood as under as on 01/04/1994, the year in which the notice u/s 148 was issued: "[(2) No order of assessment, reassessment or re-computation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of two years from

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

3) in view of explanation 1 (ii) of section 153. In this connection, it is submitted that the section 153 (2) stood as under as on 01/04/1994, the year in which the notice u/s 148 was issued: "[(2) No order of assessment, reassessment or re-computation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of two years from

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

3) in view of explanation 1 (ii) of section 153. In this connection, it is submitted that the section 153 (2) stood as under as on 01/04/1994, the year in which the notice u/s 148 was issued: "[(2) No order of assessment, reassessment or re-computation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of two years from

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

3) in view of explanation 1 (ii) of section 153. In this connection, it is submitted that the section 153 (2) stood as under as on 01/04/1994, the year in which the notice u/s 148 was issued: "[(2) No order of assessment, reassessment or re-computation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of two years from

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

3) in view of explanation 1 (ii) of section 153. In this connection, it is submitted that the section 153 (2) stood as under as on 01/04/1994, the year in which the notice u/s 148 was issued: "[(2) No order of assessment, reassessment or re-computation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of two years from

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

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

3) petitioners, being Smt. Jatinder Kaur, her daughter and son, and dismissed the said suit (PB pgs. 14-28). On being asked 4 Surinder Singh (Decd.) v. ITO about the POA and the receipt dated 27/12/2000, he would concede that the same are not available with the assessee, though would have been filed with the court by Sh. Amarjit Singh

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

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

section 147 of the act. Thus ground number 3 and 4 of the appellant are rejected. Adjudication on merits of the case: In ground nos. 5 to 15, the quantum addition is challenged by spreading in multiple grounds with consequential interest to addition u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, and hence adjudicated simultaneously in the following paras

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

153 Taxmann.com 579 (SC) dismissed the SLP filed by revenue filed against the Hon’ble high 9 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama Mittal v. ITO court where adjudicating the matter on Section 69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed

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

153 Taxmann.com 579 (SC) dismissed the SLP filed by revenue filed against the Hon’ble high 9 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama Mittal v. ITO court where adjudicating the matter on Section 69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed