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

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

SH. DINKAR KHANNA,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT -1, CIRCLE 1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

TDS of Rs. 311746/- which is duly reflected in Form 26AS. 3. That the Worthy CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has also erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1945/- on account of labour welfare fund employees share which was already disallowed by the assessee while filing the return of income. 4. That the Appellant craves leave for permission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. We are of the opinion that CIT( Appeals) as well as the Tribunal committed\nno error in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It is undisputed\nthat the sole basis for making the addition was the DVO's report. DVO's report\nmay be a useful tool in the hands of the Assessing Officer, Nevertheless

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

9)\nTMI 1-SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI\nHIGH COURT], C.I.T. Vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT].\nThus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value\ndeclared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis

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

9)\nTMI 1-SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI\nHIGH COURT], C.I.T. Vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT].\nThus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value\ndeclared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis

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

9)\nTMI 1-SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI\nHIGH COURT], C.I.T. Vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT].\nThus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value\ndeclared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis

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

9)\nTMI 1-SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI\nHIGH COURT], C.I.T. Vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT].\nThus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value\ndeclared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis

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

9)\nTMI 1-SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI\nHIGH COURT], C.I.T. Vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT].\nThus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value\ndeclared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis

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

9)\nTMI 1-SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI\nHIGH COURT], C.I.T. Vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT].\nThus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value\ndeclared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis

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

9)\nTMI 1-SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI\nHIGH COURT], C.I.T. Vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT].\nThus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value\ndeclared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis

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

9)\nTMI 1-SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI\nHIGH COURT], C.I.T. Vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT].\nThus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value\ndeclared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis

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

9)\nTMI 1-SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI\nHIGH COURT], C.I.T. Vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT].\nThus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value\ndeclared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis

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

9)\nTMI 1-SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI\nHIGH COURT], C.I.T. Vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT].\nThus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value\ndeclared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis

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

9)\nTMI 1-SUPREME Court],C.I.T. vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal [2013 (1) TMI 629 - DELHI\nHIGH COURT], C.I.T. Vs. Mahesh Kumar [2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT].\nThus in the absence of any evidence that the assessee has invested more than value\ndeclared in the registered sale deed of property purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis