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

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”\n10. In view of the above provision, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the\nCIT(A) has explained the procedure contained in Instruction No. F.No

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

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”\n10. In view of the above provision, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the\nCIT(A) has explained the procedure contained in Instruction No. F.No

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

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”\n10. In view of the above provision, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the\nCIT(A) has explained the procedure contained in Instruction No. F.No

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

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

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

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

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

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

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

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, 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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

SH. AMARJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, 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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

PARAMJIT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, 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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

BIMLA DEVI,JAGADHRI vs. PR.CIT, 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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed

SH. BALJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, CHANDIGARH

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)

171 TTJ 25(URO) o  Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported in 422 ITR 1 rendered in the case of Vinita Sanjeev Anand wherein it has been held that the entire basis for reassessment were vitiated as the reasons were recorded under the head “Where no return is filed