BIMLA DEVI,JAGADHRI vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

SH. BALJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

SH. AMARJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

RAKESH KUMAR,JAGADHRI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

INDER KAUR,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

SH. GURDEEP SINGH MAHAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

PARAMJIT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263