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

condonation of delay becomes redundant and is therefore disposed as redundant. 6. The hearings resumed. 7. The order of the Shri. Amar Singh in ITA NO. 365/CHD/2017 is being taken as a lead order. 8. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming an addition

SH. JAGTAR SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

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

condone the delays and admit both the appeals for the purpose of hearing. 7.0 The Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not made inquiries vis-à-vis 12 SA 1-Chd-2022 ITA No 202-Chd-2019,(A.Y. 2011-12) – S/Shri Jagtar Singh and Jagpal Singh the claim of the assessees

SHRI JAGPAL SINGH,FATEHBAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

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

condone the delays and admit both the appeals for the purpose of hearing. 7.0 The Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not made inquiries vis-à-vis 12 SA 1-Chd-2022 ITA No 202-Chd-2019,(A.Y. 2011-12) – S/Shri Jagtar Singh and Jagpal Singh the claim of the assessees

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

202\nFurther, it is submitted that warrant of authorization has been issued in the\nname of the assessee with regard to provisions of section 132 of the Act. Thus, the\nassessee is covered under clause (a) of proviso to the section 148A of the Act.\nTherefore, Assessing Officer is not required to pass an order u/s 148A(d) before issuing

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

202\nFurther, it is submitted that warrant of authorization has been issued in the\nname of the assessee with regard to provisions of section 132 of the Act. Thus, the\nassessee is covered under clause (a) of proviso to the section 148A of the Act.\nTherefore, Assessing Officer is not required to pass an order u/s 148A(d) before issuing

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

202\nFurther, it is submitted that warrant of authorization has been issued in the\nname of the assessee with regard to provisions of section 132 of the Act. Thus, the\nassessee is covered under clause (a) of proviso to the section 148A of the Act.\nTherefore, Assessing Officer is not required to pass an order u/s 148A(d) before issuing

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

202\nFurther, it is submitted that warrant of authorization has been issued in the\nname of the assessee with regard to provisions of section 132 of the Act. Thus, the\nassessee is covered under clause (a) of proviso to the section 148A of the Act.\nTherefore, Assessing Officer is not required to pass an order u/s 148A(d) before issuing