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)

191 Taxman 59 to hold that notes to accounts wherein it was not disclosed that the expense claimed is a prior period expense could not be termed as true and full disclosure. In this regard, it will be appreciated that the aforesaid decision has been rendered in the peculiar facts and in context of reassessment proceedings initiated beyond the period

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 could not be given on the mere change of opinion as held in numerous cases of the Supreme Court, some of which have been mentioned above. Since the Tribunal in the appeal relating to the assessee-company had considered the Tribunal's earlier decision in Boudier Christian's case, it will obviously amount to mere change of opinion

M/S SADASHIV VENTURES,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 33/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Sadashiv Ventures, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Circle-1, Sco 9, Sector 7, Chandigarh Madhya Marg, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abufs6758C अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hering ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate & Shri Ashok Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024

reassessment is bad in law. Quoting the judgement of Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. [2020] 117 taxmann.com 847 (Madras) / [2020] 273 Taxman 322 (Madras)[13-07-2020]), in which it was held that:— "If the very same reasons were the subject matter of the proceedings under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

reassessment pursuant to a search operation is\ndetection of undisclosed income. In fact, the initiation of search proceeding is\nalso based on possession of information and reason to believe that a person is in\npossession of certain valuable assets, which has not been or would not be\ndisclosed under the Act. The same is nothing but 'undisclosed income' as defined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

reassessment pursuant to a search operation is\ndetection of undisclosed income. In fact, the initiation of search proceeding is\nalso based on possession of information and reason to believe that a person is in\npossession of certain valuable assets, which has not been or would not be\ndisclosed under the Act. The same is nothing but 'undisclosed income' as defined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

reassessment pursuant to a search operation is\ndetection of undisclosed income. In fact, the initiation of search proceeding is\nalso based on possession of information and reason to believe that a person is in\npossession of certain valuable assets, which has not been or would not be\ndisclosed under the Act. The same is nothing but 'undisclosed income' as defined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

reassessment pursuant to a search operation is\ndetection of undisclosed income. In fact, the initiation of search proceeding is\nalso based on possession of information and reason to believe that a person is in\npossession of certain valuable assets, which has not been or would not be\ndisclosed under the Act. The same is nothing but 'undisclosed income' as defined

GURDISH KAUR KHULAR,JALANDHAR vs. ACIT( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 147 authorizes and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income

M/S S.R. INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

reassess such income and also any A.Y.2007-08 5 other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment………….” Thus, AO should have an information in his possession which exhibits escapement of income. This information should have a live nexus with the formation of belief that income has escaped. In the light of the above position of the law as applicable

M/S GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

reassessment beyond the period of four years. Therefore the section postulates a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. 6. A catena of judgments, both of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of the Hon’ble High Courts have given judgments bringing certain broad principles on this issue. The undersigned

SH. SOURABH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(3), LUDHIANA

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

191 (SC). it was observed that it is the duty of the assessee to disclose all the primary facts which have a bearing on the liability of the income earned by the assessee being subjected to tax. It is for the Assessing Officer to draw inferences from the facts and apply the law determining the liability of the assessee

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr Krinwant Sahay

191/- Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A), the Assessee raised the issue of approval granted by Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the Act and stated that the approval granted by Addl. CIT is mechanical in manner. The CIT(A) has reproduced the ground raised by the Assessee at page 4 of his order

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr Krinwant Sahay

191/- Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A), the Assessee raised the issue of approval granted by Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the Act and stated that the approval granted by Addl. CIT is mechanical in manner. The CIT(A) has reproduced the ground raised by the Assessee at page 4 of his order

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr Krinwant Sahay

191/- Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A), the Assessee raised the issue of approval granted by Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the Act and stated that the approval granted by Addl. CIT is mechanical in manner. The CIT(A) has reproduced the ground raised by the Assessee at page 4 of his order

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr Krinwant Sahay

191/- Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A), the Assessee raised the issue of approval granted by Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the Act and stated that the approval granted by Addl. CIT is mechanical in manner. The CIT(A) has reproduced the ground raised by the Assessee at page 4 of his order

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr Krinwant Sahay

191/- Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A), the Assessee raised the issue of approval granted by Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the Act and stated that the approval granted by Addl. CIT is mechanical in manner. The CIT(A) has reproduced the ground raised by the Assessee at page 4 of his order

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr Krinwant Sahay

191/- Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A), the Assessee raised the issue of approval granted by Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the Act and stated that the approval granted by Addl. CIT is mechanical in manner. The CIT(A) has reproduced the ground raised by the Assessee at page 4 of his order

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. 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