M/S KING EXPORTS THRU MADAN LAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, SUNIL 2025.11.07 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

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

1) ITA-100-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram ....Appellant(s) Versus M/s Bharatnet Technology Ltd. .... Respondent (2) ITA-116-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram ....Appellant(s) Versus M/s Bharatnet Technology Ltd. .... Respondent Decided on : 06.11.2023 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr.Varun Issar, Advocate, for the appellant

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-I, JALANDHAR vs. M/S SUPERTECH FORGINGS PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

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

3. Reassessment proceedings were initiated under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent-assessee had made bogus purchases of Rs.4.26 crores by inflating the expenses and thereby suppressed the profits by Rs.4.26 crores for the AY 2010-2011. 4. The bogus purchases were reflected by the statements of Sh. Madan Lal Pahuja and Jatinder Kumar before

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