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

4) was pending. In this case the Return was filed and the same is pending, which means that the proceeding is still pending. In such a situation, the Revenue could not have issued notice for the purpose of reopening under Section 147 of the Act. In the case of Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust Vs. Commissioner

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

4) was pending. In this case the Return was filed and the same is pending, which means that the proceeding is still pending. In such a situation, the Revenue could not have issued notice for the purpose of reopening under Section 147 of the Act. In the case of Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust Vs. Commissioner

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

4. The brief facts relating to the issue are that a search action u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was conducted at the premises of another assessee i.e Palace Jeweller Group. During the course of search action, certain documents belonging to the assessee were also found and seized. Thereafter, proceeding u/s 153C were

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

4. The brief facts relating to the issue are that a search action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted at the residential premises of Shri Ved Prakash & Others on 12.10.2006. During the course of search action, some incriminating documents relating to the assessee (Sanjeev Bhardwaj) were also found

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

4. The brief facts relating to the issue are that a search action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted at the residential premises of Shri Ved Prakash & Others on 12.10.2006. During the course of search action, some incriminating documents relating to the assessee (Sanjeev Bhardwaj) were also found

SMT. SHALU SOOD,INDORE vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are

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

4. The brief facts relating to the issue are that a search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was carried out by the Income Tax Authorities at the residential premises of Shri Satish Sood and business premises of M/s Oasis Distilleries Ltd. and M/s Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. During

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

4 expired. He, therefore, has contended that no additions were warranted on any issue other than based on any incriminating material found and seized during search action on the basis of which the assessment was carried out in the case of the assessee u/s 153A of the Act. He, in this respect, has relied upon the decision

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

4 expired. He, therefore, has contended that no additions were warranted on any issue other than based on any incriminating material found and seized during search action on the basis of which the assessment was carried out in the case of the assessee u/s 153A of the Act. He, in this respect, has relied upon the decision

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

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

4 of the assessee’s paper book which is the copy of the reason recorded by the A.O. for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act and read as under: Reasons for issue notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act. 1961 As per Information available with this office M/s Bansal Rice Traders, Balial Road, Bhawanigarh has maintained bank

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. 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

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

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