THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3), wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections, it remains valid so long

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

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

Section 143(3), wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections, it remains valid so long

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3), wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections, it remains valid so long

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

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

Section 143(3), wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections, it remains valid so long

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

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

Section 143(3), wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections, it remains valid so long

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3), wherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs. 28,854 was considered. 8.2 The assessee’s contention that the reassessment amounts to a mere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined in the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the reassessment was triggered by audit objections, it remains valid so long

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLEU��, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Section 143(3),\nwherein only a minor NPA provision of Rs.28,854 was considered.\n8.2 The assessee's contention that the reassessment amounts to a\nmere change of opinion is misplaced, as the issue was not examined\nin the original assessment proceedings. Furthermore, even if the\nreassessment was triggered by audit objections, it remains valid so\nlong as the Assessing

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PATIALA

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

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

reassessment proceedings in favour of the assessee company in earlier years and subsequent year and since issue stands covered in favour of the assesee company in its own case for A.Y. 2011-12 , 2014-15 and 2018-19, the grounds of appeal so taken by the assessee was allowed. Again, we find that there is no finding on merits

THE GAROH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA, KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

reassessment order was passed on 15.03.2024 assessing total income at Rs.11,31,541/- and disallowing the claim under Section 80P(2

THE GAROH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA, KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

reassessment order was passed on 15.03.2024 assessing total income at Rs.11,31,541/- and disallowing the claim under Section 80P(2