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

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

reassessment order passed was illegal and invalid due to following:-\n1. Notice u/s 148 issued on 01.04.2021 is time barred for the above Assessment\nYear.\nRegarding the date of issue of notice, there is no date mentioned on ITBA\nportal when the notice was uploaded and column is left blank. The snapshot\nis as under:\nIncome Tax Portal, Government

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)

set- ting of brought forward losses to the tune of Rs.210509768/-. The said return was accepted and a notice was issued U/s. 147 on 26th March, 2017. The reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings U/s. 147 indicated that during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14, the amount raised after the issue of GDRs during

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

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)

loss of Revenue cannot be treated as Prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Twin test is key. 10. In Form No. 36 the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the PCIT, Rohtak u/s 263 of the Income

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)

loss of Revenue cannot be treated as Prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Twin test is key. 10. In Form No. 36 the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the PCIT, Rohtak u/s 263 of the Income

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

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

LATE SH. RAJ KUMAR WADHWA THROUGH L/H SMT. USHA WADHWA,PATIALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.” 3. Ground No 1 & 4 Being General In Nature Need No Adjudication.

loss account alongwith relevant Annexures submitted by Smt. 5) Usha Wadhwa legal heirs of Sh, Raj Kumar Wadhwa for AY 2008-2009 as per return already filed original. 6) Copy of the demand notice u/s 156 in the name of dead person vide notice dated 1 28.02.2014 and 1E| page of assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 as passed

M/S GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

In the result; the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

reassessment is already complete and the assessing officer has passed the assessment order, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed tni the High Court in exercise of our power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that it will be open

DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI vs. M/S GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOHALI

In the result; the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

reassessment is already complete and the assessing officer has passed the assessment order, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed tni the High Court in exercise of our power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that it will be open

M/S GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

In the result; the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

reassessment is already complete and the assessing officer has passed the assessment order, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed tni the High Court in exercise of our power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that it will be open

MASTER TRUST LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

loss so claimed by the assessee and the assessed income was determined at Rs. 4,33,75,115/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said disallowance and against the said findings and direction of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

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)

set up. What a reasonable person can infer from the above is that as the transactions were sham, the assessee company opted not to comply the letter of this office. 5. M/s SP Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. has e-filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 vide acknowledgement no. 507755821300912 on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.32

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, 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)

u/s 263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from