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

search qua this addition towards cost of\nconstruction. This fact is evident from the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities.\n[Refer para 13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot

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

search qua this addition towards cost of\nconstruction. This fact is evident from the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities.\n[Refer para 13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot

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

search\naction. It has been held time and again that the report obtained of the DVO after the\nsearch action, would not fall in the definition of incriminating material. The Ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee has relied upon various case laws to stress the point that even in the\nabsence of any corroborating evidence, the addition solely on the basis

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

search qua this addition towards cost of\nconstruction. This fact is evident from the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities. [Refer para 13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot constitute

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

search\naction. It has been held time and again that the report obtained of the DVO after the\nsearch action, would not fall in the definition of incriminating material. The Ld. Counsel\nfor the assessee has relied upon various case laws to stress the point that even in the\nabsence of any corroborating evidence, the addition solely on the basis

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

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 of unexplained investment in a property solely on\nthe basis of DVO report without any other corroborating evidence

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

search qua this addition towards cost of\nconstruction. This fact is evident from the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities. [Refer para 13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot constitute

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

search qua this addition towards cost of\nconstruction. This fact is evident from the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities.\n[Refer para 13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot

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

search qua this addition towards cost of\nconstruction. This fact is evident from the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities.\n[Refer para 13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot

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

search qua this addition towards cost of\nconstruction. This fact is evident from the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities. [Refer para 13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot constitute

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

search qua this addition towards cost of\nconstruction. This fact is evident from the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities. [Refer para 13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot constitute

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

search qua this addition towards cost of\nconstruction. This fact is evident from the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities. [Refer para 13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot constitute

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

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 of unexplained investment in a property solely on\nthe basis of DVO report without any other corroborating evidence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

seizure operation was carried out at the premises\nof M3M (India) Ltd. situated at Paras Twin Tower-B, 6th\nFloor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon. The\nRegistered Office of the assessee was situated at Shop No.\n4/36, DDA Market, Dakshin Puri Extension, New Delhi.\nAccording to the Revenue, while preparing Panchnama\ndrawn at the Paras Twin Tower, Gurgaon, name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

seizure operation was carried out at the premises\nof M3M (India) Ltd. situated at Paras Twin Tower-B, 6th\nFloor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon. The\nRegistered Office of the assessee was situated at Shop No.\n4/36, DDA Market, Dakshin Puri Extension, New Delhi.\nAccording to the Revenue, while preparing Panchnama\ndrawn at the Paras Twin Tower, Gurgaon, name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

seizure operation was carried out at the premises\nof M3M (India) Ltd. situated at Paras Twin Tower-B, 6th\nFloor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon. The\nRegistered Office of the assessee was situated at Shop No.\n4/36, DDA Market, Dakshin Puri Extension, New Delhi.\nAccording to the Revenue, while preparing Panchnama\ndrawn at the Paras Twin Tower, Gurgaon, name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

seizure operation was carried out at the premises\nof M3M (India) Ltd. situated at Paras Twin Tower-B, 6th\nFloor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon. The\nRegistered Office of the assessee was situated at Shop No.\n4/36, DDA Market, Dakshin Puri Extension, New Delhi.\nAccording to the Revenue, while preparing Panchnama\ndrawn at the Paras Twin Tower, Gurgaon, name

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. SARAF THE JEWELLERS, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1231/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1593/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

TDS. No independent enquiry is shown to have been carried out from the two contractors and there is no cogent material on record to indicate incurrence of unaccounted expenditure by the 17 assessee. The assessee has maintained regular books of accounts which are duly audited as required under law. The books have not been rejected and no defect has been