SH. SANJEEV BHARADWAJ,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessees are

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

249, 250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

SH. SANJEEV BHARADWAJ,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessees are

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

249, 250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 226/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 456/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

249, 250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 226/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 456/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Dcit, Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, बनाम Central Circle-1, Prop Sagar Enterprise, Chandigarh Scf 153, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Agipk9063H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

249, 250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

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

249, 250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

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

249, 250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

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

249, 250 & 251/M/2013 decided on 20.02.2014 (One of us being party to that order). The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail and has made the following observations: “8. The learned DR has also filed written submissions. To stress his point that the return processed u/s. 143(1) cannot be said to be an assessment but a mere intimation

SH. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

249 (Mad.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- “…The revenue, aggrieved over that portion of the order, filed the present appeal by formulating the following questions of law:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reassessment proceedings are not valid since the assessing officer is barred

SH. SATNAM SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), MOHALI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

249 (Mad.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- “…The revenue, aggrieved over that portion of the order, filed the present appeal by formulating the following questions of law:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reassessment proceedings are not valid since the assessing officer is barred

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides\npowers to the 1d. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing\nthe appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been\nused in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever\ninterpretation and construction of this expression has fallen\nfor consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before\nthe Hon'ble Supreme

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides\npowers to the 1d. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing\nthe appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been\nused in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever\ninterpretation and construction of this expression has fallen\nfor consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before\nthe Hon'ble Supreme

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides\npowers to the 1d. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing\nthe appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been\nused in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever\ninterpretation and construction of this expression has fallen\nfor consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before\nthe Hon'ble Supreme

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides\npowers to the 1d. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing\nthe appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been\nused in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever\ninterpretation and construction of this expression has fallen\nfor consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before\nthe Hon'ble Supreme

BANSAL RICE TRADERS,SANGRUR vs. ITO-WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the Income Tax, 1961. Therefore, Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A. Y. 2010-11 is being issued to the assessee. The notice u/s 148 has been issued after obtaining necessary approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. Dated: 17/03/2017 (BALBIR SINGH) Income Tax Officer, Ward, Sangrur 7.1 Ld. Counsel

SAUGAAT,AMBALA CANTT vs. ITO, WARD 4, AMBALA CANTT. (ASSESSMENT UNIT), AMBALA CANTT

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

147 of the Income-tax Act for AY 2018-19, wherein a demand of ₹2,26,44,140/- was raised. The assessment was framed ex-parte since the assessee had not filed any return of income for the year and also did not respond to several statutory notices issued during the reassessment proceedings. As recorded by the AO, the assessee

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

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

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

reassessment proceedings, the deposit of cash was found to be explained by the AO. At the same time, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee society had made security deposit of Rs. 21.49 lacs with a closely related family trust i.e; Lala Daswandi Ram Family Trust. The assessee society was thereafter called upon to explain

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

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

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

reassessment proceedings, the deposit of cash was found to be explained by the AO. At the same time, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee society had made security deposit of Rs. 21.49 lacs with a closely related family trust i.e; Lala Daswandi Ram Family Trust. The assessee society was thereafter called upon to explain

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

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

reassessment proceedings, the deposit of cash was found to be explained by the AO. At the same time, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee society had made security deposit of Rs. 21.49 lacs with a closely related family trust i.e; Lala Daswandi Ram Family Trust. The assessee society was thereafter called upon to explain

ANIL KUMAR MITTAL H.NO. 143, DLF VALLEY PANCHKULA,PANCHKULA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has since confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the notice under Section 148 dated 30/03/2019 has not been served on the assessee on his address and some other address has been mentioned in the notice which doesn't belong to the assessee. It was submitted that on inspection of the assessment records, it has been noted that the notice has been re

249 (Delhi), (enclosed at Page 59-69 of the Judgment set) It has been reported as under "On the facts of the present case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that since no proper service of notice had been affected under section 148 (1) on the assessee, the reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed. [Para 47]" • Smt. Charanjit