ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

section 143(3). Such an exercise in our view is not permissible in law as Ld. AO has no power of review. Revenue has other options like 154 & 263 of the Act. We also notice that reasons were contested and no independent speaking order was given despite mandate of Supreme Court of India in case of GKN Driveshafts (India

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of or to give effect to any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. 19. A direction or finding as contemplated by Section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and- - In a case where

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. (2) ………” 8. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this case has been that the assessment order framed in this case is invalid being

SH.SOHAN LAL ARORA,MOHALI vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. (2) ………” 8. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this case has been that the assessment order framed in this case is invalid being

SH. S.L. ARORA,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. (2) ………” 8. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this case has been that the assessment order framed in this case is invalid being

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. S.L. ARORA, MOHALI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. (2) ………” 8. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this case has been that the assessment order framed in this case is invalid being

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. (2) ………” 8. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this case has been that the assessment order framed in this case is invalid being

ITO, WARD, SIRHIND vs. SH. KESAR SINGH, SIRHIND

The appeals of the Revenue is allowed whereas Cross

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

3) of the IT Act. 11. That the impugned assessment orders dated 22.06.2016 are barred by time limitation as the proceedings before TTSC stands abated in 31.07.2007. Hence, the impugned assessment orders are liable to be quashed. 12. Section 245D(2D) inserted by way of Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.6.2007, reads as under: "Where an application was made under

DCIT, CIRCLE, MANDI GOBINGARH vs. SH. GURINDERJIT SINGH, SIRHIND

The appeals of the Revenue is allowed whereas Cross

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

3) of the IT Act. 11. That the impugned assessment orders dated 22.06.2016 are barred by time limitation as the proceedings before TTSC stands abated in 31.07.2007. Hence, the impugned assessment orders are liable to be quashed. 12. Section 245D(2D) inserted by way of Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.6.2007, reads as under: "Where an application was made under

ITO, WARD, SIRHIND vs. SH. HARJIT SINGH, SIRHIND

The appeals of the Revenue is allowed whereas Cross

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

3) of the IT Act. 11. That the impugned assessment orders dated 22.06.2016 are barred by time limitation as the proceedings before TTSC stands abated in 31.07.2007. Hence, the impugned assessment orders are liable to be quashed. 12. Section 245D(2D) inserted by way of Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.6.2007, reads as under: "Where an application was made under