DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

148 can be invoked. Further, such\nan exercise should be reasonable and not fanciful or roving as pointed\nout in ITO vs LAKHMANIMEWAL DAS (1976) 3 SCC 757, (103 ITR\n457). Though this decision was rendered long before the amendment\nto the subject section was effected, its inner voice animates the\nDivision Bench decision of Delhi High Court in DIVYA

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

148 can be invoked. Further, such\nan exercise should be reasonable and not fanciful or roving as pointed\nout in ITO vs LAKHMANIMEWAL DAS (1976) 3 SCC 757, (103 ITR\n457). Though this decision was rendered long before the amendment\nto the subject section was effected, its inner voice animates the\nDivision Bench decision of Delhi High Court in DIVYA

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain in the assessment year 2009-10 in accordance with law. 18. In view of the above there is no need to decide the remaining grounds of the appeal claiming the exemption under section 54B and reopening under section 148

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain in the assessment year 2009-10 in accordance with law. 18. In view of the above there is no need to decide the remaining grounds of the appeal claiming the exemption under section 54B and reopening under section 148

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

capital gain was declared in the return of income. Accordingly notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee, in response

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

capital gain was declared in the return of income. Accordingly notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee, in response

S.SURJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section 148, the assessee filed a copy of revised return filed on 30/09/2012 disclosing the capital gains on sale of the property

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act,\nwhere any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any\nprevious year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of\nthe assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the\nassessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the\nAssessing Officer

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

Section 148 to re-assess the time barring assessment. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld issue of notice u/s 148 merely on change of opinion. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) has wrongly set aside the issue of disallowance of long term capital gain