THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. The AO found that out of the total receipt of Rs.9,94,56,533/-, only a sum of Rs.6,51,26,448/- (revenue expenditure of Rs.4,75,81,711/- + capital expenditure of Rs.1,75,44,737/-) has been spent towards the objects, which approximately formed 72% of the total receipts. The AO found

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. The AO found that out of the total receipt of Rs.9,94,56,533/-, only a sum of Rs.6,51,26,448/- (revenue expenditure of Rs.4,75,81,711/- + capital expenditure of Rs.1,75,44,737/-) has been spent towards the objects, which approximately formed 72% of the total receipts. The AO found

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. The AO found that out of the total receipt of Rs.9,94,56,533/-, only a sum of Rs.6,51,26,448/- (revenue expenditure of Rs.4,75,81,711/- + capital expenditure of Rs.1,75,44,737/-) has been spent towards the objects, which approximately formed 72% of the total receipts. The AO found

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38 of the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material

CHANDIGARH ROYALE CITY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH ,CHANDIGARH vs. JAO DCIT/ACIT/JCIT(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment 5. proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144B and Section 151A

CHANDIGARH ROYALE CITY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. JAO DCIT/ACIT/JCIT(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are partly allowed

reassessment 5. proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144B and Section 151A

CHANDIGARH ROYALE CITY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. JAO DCIT/ACIT/JCIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No. 1269 To 1272/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Το 2023-24 Chandigarh Royale City Promoters बनाम JAO DCIT/ACIT/JCIT (OSD) Central Private Limited, Circle-1, Chandigarh-160017 SCO-44, Sector-20C, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAECC3999H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1273 Το 1275/Chd/ 2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2023-2

reassessment 5. proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144B and Section 151A

KEWAL KRISHAN, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. JOA DCIT/ACIT/JCIT(OSD)(CENTRAL CIRCLE) 1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No. 1269 To 1272/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Το 2023-24 Chandigarh Royale City Promoters बनाम JAO DCIT/ACIT/JCIT (OSD) Central Private Limited, Circle-1, Chandigarh-160017 SCO-44, Sector-20C, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAECC3999H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1273 Το 1275/Chd/ 2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2023-2

reassessment 5. proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144B and Section 151A

CHANDIGARH ROYALE CITY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. JAO DCIT/ACIT/JCIT(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment 5. proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144B and Section 151A

KEWAL KRISHAN, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. JAO DCIT/ACIT JCIT (OSD)(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1, CHANDIGARH., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are partly allowed

reassessment 5. proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144B and Section 151A

KEWAL KRISHAN CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. JAO DCIT/ACIT/JCIT(OSD) (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are partly allowed

reassessment 5. proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144B and Section 151A

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38 of the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. MS SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATOTRIES AND EDUCATION LTD., , CHANDIGARH

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38 of the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material

SATISH KATOCH,PALAMPUR vs. ITO, PALAMPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The A.O. U/S 154 Of The Act Against

5 A.Y.2007-08 u/s 147 of the Act, which is the fact in the present case. It was contended that as per the said sub section, in case of re-assessment made under section 147 of the Act, interest under section 234B was imposable only if the amount on which interest was payable under section 234B(1), was increased. In other

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

4 & 5 has effectively challenged the action of the AO in assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A in absence of any incriminating material/documents found during the course of search in case of the assessee and the ld CIT(A) confirming the said assumption of jurisdiction by the AO. 6. Before we advert to the rival contentions raised by both

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

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

5. That the Assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the ITSC under section 245D(4), filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the ground that No opportunity of being heard was given to the Assessee before passing the said order. 6. That AO submitted the reply affidavit to the Civil