TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

151 has held that "as a revisional authority Commissioner Appeals can revise not only the ultimate computation arrived at but every process which led to the ultimate computation or assessment". The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of V. Subramonia Aiyr vs. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 685 held that "the power conferred on Appellate Authority by Section

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

151 and section 153, the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

151 and section 153, the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

151 and section 153, the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

151 and section 153, the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

151 and section 153, the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

151 and section 153, the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

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

Section 151 but also the Approving\nAuthority did not approve the basis as mentioned in the reasons recorded by\nAO. This variance indicates non-application of mind by the approving\nauthority and renders the sanction mechanical, invalid, and unsustainable in\nlaw, vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings as per binding judgement\nof Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

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

Section 151 but also the Approving\nAuthority did not approve the basis as mentioned in the reasons recorded by\nAO. This variance indicates non-application of mind by the approving\nauthority and renders the sanction mechanical, invalid, and unsustainable in\nlaw, vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings as per binding judgement\nof Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

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

Section 151 but also the Approving\nAuthority did not approve the basis as mentioned in the reasons recorded by\nAO. This variance indicates non-application of mind by the approving\nauthority and renders the sanction mechanical, invalid, and unsustainable in\nlaw, vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings as per binding judgement\nof Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

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

Section 151 but also the Approving\nAuthority did not approve the basis as mentioned in the reasons recorded by\nAO. This variance indicates non-application of mind by the approving\nauthority and renders the sanction mechanical, invalid, and unsustainable in\nlaw, vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings as per binding judgement\nof Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

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)

Section 151 of the Act, appearing at pages 68-71 of the paper book ought to have been issued

SH. RANDHIR 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)

Section 151 of the Act, appearing at pages 68-71 of the paper book ought to have been issued

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)

Section 151 of the Act, appearing at pages 68-71 of the paper book ought to have been issued

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)

Section 151 of the Act, appearing at pages 68-71 of the paper book ought to have been issued

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)

Section 151 of the Act, appearing at pages 68-71 of the paper book ought to have been issued

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)

Section 151 of the Act, appearing at pages 68-71 of the paper book ought to have been issued

DHUNI CHAND 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)

Section 151 of the Act, appearing at pages 68-71 of the paper book ought to have been issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AMARJIT SINGH , BATHINDA

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

68 read with Section 115BBE amounting to the tune of Rs.9,65,71,414/-. In other words, both the grounds are in support of the CIT(A)’s finding. If we peruse sub-clause (4) of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, it provides that the AO or the assessee, as & C.O. 07/CHD/2024 A.Y.2019-20 3 the case