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)

65,85,400/- after making the disallowance of bad debts written off during the year. The order of Ld. AO bears No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/10359/30321(1) and is dated 27/09/2021. 8. That the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the disallowance made by the AO in the aforesaid reassessment order dt. 27/09/2021 passed under section

ASHISH SOOD,ZIRAKPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

65,39,120/- wherein total tax paid is shown as Rs. 4,93,295/-. 4. In computation of total income (revised) an amount of Rs. 7,70,863/- is claimed as eligible deductible under section 90/91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. In support of such eligible deductible claim under section 90/91

INDO PACIFIC FINLEASE LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT CHANDIGARH 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the\nassessee are allowed

section 263 for the first time in the above order.\nOtherwise also the adequate inquiry/Verifications have\nbeen made as required for reassessment u/s 147 of the\nIT Act. Hence the order of PCIT should be set aside.\n7.\nWithout prejudice to above ground of appeal, that\nhaving regard to facts & circumstances of the case. Ld.\nPr.CIT has erred

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

65,89,615/- has been added by the AO under Section 69B on account of unexplained investment in the total income of the assessee for these assessment years. 5. Dissatisfied with the additions, assessee carried the matter in appeal in both the years. Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions by way of separate orders passed on 03.01.2024. The finding

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

65,89,615/- has been added by the AO under Section 69B on account of unexplained investment in the total income of the assessee for these assessment years. 5. Dissatisfied with the additions, assessee carried the matter in appeal in both the years. Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions by way of separate orders passed on 03.01.2024. The finding

INDO PACIFIC FINLEASE LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT- CHANDIGARH 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the\nassessee are allowed

section 263 for the first time in the above order. Otherwise also the adequate inquiry/Verifications have been made as required for reassessment u/s 147 of the IT Act. Hence the order of PCIT should be set aside.\n\n7.\nWithout prejudice to above ground of appeal, that having regard to facts & circumstances of the case. Ld. Pr.CIT has erred

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

1) of section 153B, except with the\nprior approval of the Joint Commissioner:\nProvided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment\nor reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the\nAssessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA

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

1) of section 153B, except with the\nprior approval of the Joint Commissioner:\nProvided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment\nor reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the\nAssessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA

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

1) of section 153B, except with the\nprior approval of the Joint Commissioner:\nProvided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment\nor reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the\nAssessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA

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

1) of section 153B, except with the\nprior approval of the Joint Commissioner:\nProvided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment\nor reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the\nAssessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA

VIMAL ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, PATIALA, PUNJAB

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings were initiated and completed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), whereas under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, such powers vested only with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of this Bench in Vikas Jain v. ACIT, ITA No. 838/Chd/2024. 7.6 The Ld. AR further relied upon the decision of the Chandigarh

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)

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

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)

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

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)

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

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)

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal