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

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

u/s 263 which is bad in law inter\nalia for this reason that the reassessment order passed\nu/s 147 r.w.s

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment proceeding against which notice u/s 148 issued on 31st March, 2018. However you have sought to justify the same by referring to the provisions of Section 147

SATISH KATOCH,PALAMPUR vs. ITO, PALAMPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

reassessment. Assessee's contention that if no' interest has been charged u/s 143(1) or regular assessment, than interest cannot be charged u/s 234B is not correct and hence rejected. Explanation 2 to section 234B(1J clearly says that "where in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for 4 A.Y.2007-08 the 1st time under section 147

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)

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act has been initiated only on the basis of the material which was already available

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice dated 26-03-14,and the same have not been controverted before us. Therefore, what follows is that, prior to the notice issued u/s 148 on 26.3.2014, in consequence of which the present assessment u/s 147

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment order so passed u/s 147 r/w 144B read as under: "1. The case has been re-opened on the issue

DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court? Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Is Right Holding Such Consequential Order As Void An Initio Ignoring The Facts That Order Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Gurugram U/S 263 Has Not Attained Its Finality? Iii) Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Holding That Consequential Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act As Void As Initio Without Giving Any Liberty To The Revenue To Revive The Proceedings Consequent To Any Directions Or Order

reassessment was completed u/s 147 r/w 143(3) on 27/11/2017 at an income of Rs 8,87,92,864/- wherein

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

u/s 147 which deals with assessment / reassessment are all irrelevant and we uphold the findings of PCIT on this score

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

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

u/s 147 which deals with assessment / reassessment are all irrelevant and we uphold the findings of PCIT on this score

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings were completed by passing of order u/s 147 r/w 143(3) dated 21/12/2017 and therefore, the revisionary proceedings

PARVEEN KUMAR MITTAL,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Us Raising The Following Grounds:

147 of the Act, was itself not a valid order and hence since the original order was invalid the order passed in collateral proceedings was also not sustainable in law. The revenue has contested this argument both with regards to the proposition regarding challenging original proceedings in collateral proceedings and also on the merits of the original proceedings being

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, W-3, PANCHKULA

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

reassessment order inter alia on the legal ground that initiation of proceedings u/s 147 without proper service of notice u/s

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 147 are initiated on the fallacious assumption that the bank deposits constituted undisclosed income, over-looking the fact that the source of the deposits need not necessarily be the income of the assessee, the proceedings is neither countenanced, nor sustainable in law. " Further reliance is placed on the decision of ITO v/s Lakhmani Mewal Das, Supreme Court

JASPREET SINGH SIDHU,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 335/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jaspreet Singh Sidhu, Vs. The Pcit-1, बनाम Cr Building, Sector 17, H. No. 1656, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bykps6091L अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr

147 has this effect that the Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess the income (such income) which escaped assessment, and which was the basis of the formation of belief arid if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which, comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings

JAMYANG KHYENTSE YESHI,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ACIT, DCIT, C.R. BUILDING, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A), After Calling For A Remand Report Under Rule 46A, Recorded The Following Findings (Para 5.1 To 5.5 Of The Appellate Order):

147 to 153, in relation to both reopening u/s 148 and making reassessment, thus reassessment was bad in law and in procedure

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SAB UDYOG LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but the abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the learned DR that as the return was processed u/s. 143(1) and it was a mere intimation hence, the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and it was open to the AO to reassess

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SAB UDYOG LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but the abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the learned DR that as the return was processed u/s. 143(1) and it was a mere intimation hence, the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and it was open to the AO to reassess

M/S RPA DEVELOPERS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

147 on that very ground would mean nothing else but the abuse of process of law. Hence, the contention of the learned DR that as the return was processed u/s. 143(1) and it was a mere intimation hence, the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and it was open to the AO to reassess