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)

u/s 148 of the I.T. Act on 10.02.2020. Thus, the notice was issued by the AO within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and, therefore, the first Proviso to section 147 of the I.T. Act is not attracted in this case. 5.8 Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is reproduced as under:- Income escaping assessment

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 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act in according permission to re-verify and re-examine the matters in reference being the question of the proportion of deduction (viz. 25% versus 100%) u/s 80IC of the Act for the reason that prior to the initiation of the revision proceedings, enquiries/examinations in the manners in which these ought to have

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)

u/s 143(3) r/w 147 of the Act and the impugned revisionary order so passed by the ld PCIT setting aside the reassessment order is thus not barred by limitation as the limitation period will start from passing of the reassessment order and not the original assessment order. 24. At the same time, we find that the matter relating

RAJESH KHANNA,NEELKANTH PLYWOOD, YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

147 of the Act. Order under sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1042149336(1) dated 30/03/2022 and annexed herewith for reference. 2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other, allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. RAJESH KHANNA, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

147 of the Act. Order under sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1042149336(1) dated 30/03/2022 and annexed herewith for reference. 2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other, allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year

ANISH GARG,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-4, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Depreciation Rs 1,35,000/- being non-cash expenses) whereas the closing\ncash in hand is Rs 84,800/- only.\n(ii) Balance Rs 3,24,700/-(4,09,000/-minus 84,800/-) was available with assessee for\nhousehold and other personal expenses. Which was more than sufficient for a\nfamily of 4 members with no school going child

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)

u/s 148 is being obtained separately from the Pr. Commissioner of Income tax-8, New Delhi as per the provisions of the section 151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 9. In view of the above reasons, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the only charge of the AO in the reasons recorded is that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 148 and further, PCIT has\ngiven the approval, on the basis, that, since the search have been\nconducted on the assessee on 08.09.2021, the reopening for the past\nthree years is automatic. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the\n13\nprovisions of the Finance Act, 2021 and Explanation 2 to Section 148 as\nintroduced by Finance

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 148 and further, PCIT has\ngiven the approval, on the basis, that, since the search have been\nconducted on the assessee on 08.09.2021, the reopening for the past\nthree years is automatic. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the\nprovisions of the Finance Act, 2021 and Explanation 2 to Section 148 as\nintroduced by Finance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 148 and further, PCIT has\ngiven the approval, on the basis, that, since the search have been\nconducted on the assessee on 08.09.2021, the reopening for the past\nthree years is automatic. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the\n13\nprovisions of the Finance Act, 2021 and Explanation 2 to Section 148 as\nintroduced by Finance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 148 and further, PCIT has\ngiven the approval, on the basis, that, since the search have been\nconducted on the assessee on 08.09.2021, the reopening for the past\nthree years is automatic. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the\n\n13\nprovisions of the Finance Act, 2021 and Explanation 2 to Section 148 as\nintroduced by Finance

SUDARSHAN JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, AMBALA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

u/s 147, finding its basis in the\naforesaid reasons, to be an invalid notice, in keeping with the decision of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in 'Kelvinator of India Ltd.' (supra), as considered in\n'Dr.Ajit Gupta' (supra). Consequently, all proceedings pursuant thereto,\nculminating in the impugned order for the A.Y. 2007-08, are also held to be null\nand

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s. 263 of the Act issued by the Pr. CIT is vague and only for making deeper enquiry and re-considering the evidences already on record duly considered during assessment proceedings based on purported proposal that fresh facts have been emerged subsequent to the order of assessment which is factually incorrect and untenable and the conditions or the factors enabling

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the IT Act. However, as noted above, all contentions of all parties are kept open in this context." 18. It has been contended that the Assessing Officer has wrongly made addition u/s 153A(l)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 15 on the direction

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the IT Act. However, as noted above, all contentions of all parties are kept open in this context." 18. It has been contended that the Assessing Officer has wrongly made addition u/s 153A(l)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 15 on the direction

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the IT Act. However, as noted above, all contentions of all parties are kept open in this context. 14.4 It has been contended that the Assessing Officer has wrongly made addition u/s 153A(l)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on the direction of the third party without having any incriminating

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the IT Act. However, as noted above, all contentions of all parties are kept open in this context. 14.4 It has been contended that the Assessing Officer has wrongly made addition u/s 153A(l)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on the direction of the third party without having any incriminating