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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

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

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have been initiated merely based on the proposal of the Ld. Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 263 on his satisfaction that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is invalid and hence, liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans but the Ld. PCIT did not give any thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the assessee but passed the impugned order in a summary manner, without any evidence on record and on the basis of the fact that

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans but the Ld. PCIT did not give any thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the assessee but passed the impugned order in a summary manner, without any evidence on record and on the basis of the fact that