(1) ClT v. Chouhan Resorts

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)

…ted nor any defect was pointed therein. In such an event, referral to DVO was not according to law. We draw your attention to the following cases decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court on the same point. CIT Vs. Chohan Resorts (2013) 359 ITR 394 (P&H) Sangam Cinema Vs. CIT(2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) In view of above decisions by Hon’ble Courts, reference to DVO was void ab initio and any inference drawn from the report also has no valid basis. In view of all the facts stated above, you will understand that there is nothing wrong and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We request you to p…

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)

…ted nor any defect was pointed therein. In such an event, referral to DVO was not according to law. We draw your attention to the following cases decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court on the same point. CIT Vs. Chohan Resorts (2013) 359 ITR 394 (P&H) Sangam Cinema Vs. CIT(2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) In view of above decisions by Hon’ble Courts, reference to DVO was void ab initio and any inference drawn from the report also has no valid basis. In view of all the facts stated above, you will understand that there is nothing wrong and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We request you to p…

M/S Hotel Ajuba Residency, Patiala vs. DCIT, Circle, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…Nath Majumdar V/s Income Tax Officer 221ITR 608 (GAU) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s V T Rajendran 288 ITR 312 (MAD) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Dhariya Construction Company 328 ITR 515 (SC) 4. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Chohan Resorts 359 ITR 394 (P&H) 5. Sargam Cinema V/s Commissioner of Income Tax 328 ITR 513 (SC) 6. Darshan Buildcon V/s Income Tax Officer 416ITR66(GUJ) 8. In his rival submissions the Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that since there was the difference between valuation determined by the DVO and as disclosed by the…