SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

carried out u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act in\nthe absence of any incriminating material found during the search action. He has further\nrelied upon various case laws to contend that the report of the DVO cannot be construed\nas an incriminating material found during the course of search action and further that\naddition cannot be made on account

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs. 1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

carried out u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act in\nthe absence of any incriminating material found during the search action. He has further\nrelied upon various case laws to contend that the report of the DVO cannot be construed\nas an incriminating material found during the course of search action and further that\naddition cannot be made on account

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

carried out any sale or purchase but facilitated group entities by providing the bills\nfor these sales and purchases when such goods never existed. The AO concluded that the\ncompany’s transactions were not genuine and were sham in nature. Based on these findings,\nthe AO treated the income of the company as commission income, applying a rate

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

carried out any sale or purchase but facilitated group entities by providing the bills\nfor these sales and purchases when such goods never existed. The AO concluded that the\ncompany’s transactions were not genuine and were sham in nature. Based on these findings,\nthe AO treated the income of the company as commission income, applying a rate

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , CHANDIGARH

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

carried out u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act in\nthe absence of any incriminating material found during the search action. He has further\nrelied upon various case laws to contend that the report of the DVO cannot be construed\nas an incriminating material found during the course of search action and further that\naddition cannot be made on account

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

forward TDS No adverse view was Already discussed during original proceedings taken by the PCITon this issue. 6. Expenditure by way of penalty Fee&Penalty(Alreadydiscussedduringoriginal No adverse view was proceedings) taken by the PCIT on relevant query raised by the AO and this issue. fine of violation of any law. 7. - AdditionintheFixed Asset(NewIssue) Issue considered by (beyond

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

TDS interest of Rs. 1,658/- (supra) and amount of Rs. 32,20,737/- (supra). The impugned assessment order of the ld. A.O. is dated 18.11.2016, wherein aggregate addition is of Rs. 52,70,767/-(supra amounts). Assessed loss is of Rs. 63,18,868/- against returned loss of (-)Rs. 1,15,89,635/-. 11. The Assessee being aggrieved

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

TDS interest of Rs. 1,658/- (supra) and amount of Rs. 32,20,737/- (supra). The impugned assessment order of the ld. A.O. is dated 18.11.2016, wherein aggregate addition is of Rs. 52,70,767/-(supra amounts). Assessed loss is of Rs. 63,18,868/- against returned loss of (-)Rs. 1,15,89,635/-. 11. The Assessee being aggrieved

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

TDS interest of Rs. 1,658/- (supra) and amount of Rs. 32,20,737/- (supra). The impugned assessment order of the ld. A.O. is dated 18.11.2016, wherein aggregate addition is of Rs. 52,70,767/-(supra amounts). Assessed loss is of Rs. 63,18,868/- against returned loss of (-)Rs. 1,15,89,635/-. 11. The Assessee being aggrieved

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

TDS interest of Rs. 1,658/- (supra) and amount of Rs. 32,20,737/- (supra). The impugned assessment order of the ld. A.O. is dated 18.11.2016, wherein aggregate addition is of Rs. 52,70,767/-(supra amounts). Assessed loss is of Rs. 63,18,868/- against returned loss of (-)Rs. 1,15,89,635/-. 11. The Assessee being aggrieved