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

4. The only point to be considered is whether the valuation rendered by the DVO\nis to be taken into account or not. It has been argued by the learned counsel for\nthe revenue that the assessing officer was justified in referring the matter to the\nDVO for an opinion with regard to the fair market value of the property

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

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

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

4. The only point to be considered is whether the valuation rendered by the DVO\nis to be taken into account or not. It has been argued by the learned counsel for\nthe revenue that the assessing officer was justified in referring the matter to the\nDVO for an opinion with regard to the fair market value of the property

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

4. The only point to be considered is whether the valuation rendered by the DVO\nis to be taken into account or not. It has been argued by the learned counsel for\nthe revenue that the assessing officer was justified in referring the matter to the\nDVO for an opinion with regard to the fair market value of the property

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

4. The only point to be considered is whether the valuation rendered by the DVO\nis to be taken into account or not. It has been argued by the learned counsel for\nthe revenue that the assessing officer was justified in referring the matter to the\nDVO for an opinion with regard to the fair market value of the property

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

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

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

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

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

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

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

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

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

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

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

Section 69B of the Act. In absence of any other material on\nrecord, addition was correctly deleted. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”\n11. A perusal of the above judgments would indicate that mere valuation report is not\nsufficient to conclude that the assessee has made unexplained investment. From perusal\nof the assessment, nowhere it reveals that inspite of search, Revenue

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

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

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

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 1652 8 VISHNU COLONY, RAILWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

TDS liability on behalf of trust and amount of Rs. 4,42,520/- is outstanding against his name as it was paid to him in advance. Further, there is also a reference to various entries such as: Entry standings in the Balance Sheet as white amount: 1) Abhinav Gupta 17250/- 2) Arun Gupta 226056/- 3) Rama Gupta 675322/- 4) Subash

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 16528 VISHNU COLONY, RALIWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

TDS liability on behalf of trust and amount of Rs. 4,42,520/- is outstanding against his name as it was paid to him in advance. Further, there is also a reference to various entries such as: Entry standings in the Balance Sheet as white amount: 1) Abhinav Gupta 17250/- 2) Arun Gupta 226056/- 3) Rama Gupta 675322/- 4) Subash

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory\nacquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further\ncontended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the\nlis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only

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

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153\nof the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income\nas defined in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, then no purpose would be served in\nreopening the assessment already completed. Also, if there is no detection of any\nundisclosed income, then there would be no need