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

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

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)

10(37). The Assessing Officer erred in not examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability of sections 145B

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

reassessment on account of revision under section 263 is bad in law\nand liable to be quashed?\n3.1 Complete Enquiry Conducted by the Learned Assessing Officer\n3.1.1 In this case, the original assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was not an\ninstance of non-application of mind or a failure to conduct inquiry. It is\nrespectfully submitted that

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

reassessment on account of revision under section 263 is bad in law\nand liable to be quashed?\n3.1 Complete Enquiry Conducted by the Learned Assessing Officer\n3.1.1 In this case, the original assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was not an\ninstance of non-application of mind or a failure to conduct inquiry. It is\nrespectfully submitted that