THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SWARAJ ENGINES LTD MOHALI

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GURGAON vs. M/S BHARATNET TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

Appeals stands dismissed in limine

Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

3. The Tribunal, vide order dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure A-3) came to the conclusion that the CIT (Appeal) had deleted the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer observing that no incriminating material was found during the search action carried out in the case of the assessee. The Income Tax Returns and assessment proceedings already stood concluded on the date

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JALANDHAR vs. M/S SUPERTECH FORGINGS PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh ITA-101-2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:116723-DB -2- total additions. Neither the department nor the assessee had filed appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The case was reopened u/s 147 on 30.03.2017 on the basis of the information received by the AO from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I LUDHIANA vs. M/S VERDHMAN TEXTILES LTD. LUDHIANA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

10,52,040/-. Assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act was completed vide order dated AJAY PRASHER 2023.04.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.315 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 30.12.2009. However, the Assessing Officer, after recording the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income

HRY WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

3) of 1961 Act was framed by Assessing Authority. The appellant filed income tax returns which were merely processed. There was no assessment order on the part of Assessing Officer, thus, Assessing Officer in view of judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (supra) was quite competent to reopen assessment in terms of Section