SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 1652 8 VISHNU COLONY, RAILWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

148 of the Income Tax Act. In other words, whether this assessment order is void ab-initio for want of a notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. He was a Trustee in a Trust namely Shri Krishna Educational Trust (SKET) at Kurukshetra. According

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 16528 VISHNU COLONY, RALIWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

148 of the Income Tax Act. In other words, whether this assessment order is void ab-initio for want of a notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual. He was a Trustee in a Trust namely Shri Krishna Educational Trust (SKET) at Kurukshetra. According

BANSAL RICE TRADERS,SANGRUR vs. ITO-WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS was deducted for this payment. The same may kindly be accepted. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • ITO Vs. Kuber Chand Sharma in ITA No. 3982/Del/2009 (ITAT Del) • Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT 1991 AIR 241 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 340 the Hon'ble Supreme Court • Avan Gidwani Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 5138/Mum/2015

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS @ 15% Omaxe 2007-08 Rs. 2,58,092/- Rs. 39,488/- 2008-09 Rs. 61,93,345/- Rs. 1,

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS @ 15% Omaxe 2007-08 Rs. 2,58,092/- Rs. 39,488/- 2008-09 Rs. 61,93,345/- Rs. 1,

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS @ 15% Omaxe 2007-08 Rs. 2,58,092/- Rs. 39,488/- 2008-09 Rs. 61,93,345/- Rs. 1,

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS @ 15% Omaxe 2007-08 Rs. 2,58,092/- Rs. 39,488/- 2008-09 Rs. 61,93,345/- Rs. 1,

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS @ 15% Omaxe 2007-08 Rs. 2,58,092/- Rs. 39,488/- 2008-09 Rs. 61,93,345/- Rs. 1,

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS @ 15% Omaxe 2007-08 Rs. 2,58,092/- Rs. 39,488/- 2008-09 Rs. 61,93,345/- Rs. 1,

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

148 is being obtained separately from the Pr. Commissioner of Income tax-8, New Delhi as per the provisions of the section 151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 9. In view of the above reasons, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the only charge of the AO in the reasons recorded is that the assessee has used

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

148 by playing two innings as there are two separate independent assessment orders one dt. 12/06/2020 under section 9 143 (3) and another under section 147/148 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act. In addition to this the assessee firm has gone through further rigours of proceedings under section 263. The Ld. AR further contended that

SH. GANESH DASS MEHTA,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. KULDEEP SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. GURDEEP SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BALDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BALBIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. JOGINDER SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BALWINDER SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. LAKHVINDER SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated