SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

150 104 Acquisition 3962 1,65,14,270 105 officer 3959 66,84,980 106 85 HSIIDC 35,060 107 Total 4,90,93,460 That appellant also referred to amendments made in S. 56(2), 57 and 145A vide Finance (No.2) Act 2009 together with memorandum explaining Finance Bill 2009 as reported in ITR 183(St) page

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

2) TMI 459 - |TAT KOLKATA] From the\nperusal of panchnama and the assessment orders, it can be safely inferred that the\nreference made by DDIT (Inv.) for valuation of the properties was without any\nincriminating materials found during search [oral or documentary which could have\nsuggested that the assessee has shown less investment in its books for building\nconstruction] Therefore

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

2) TMI 459 - |TAT KOLKATA] From the\nperusal of panchnama and the assessment orders, it can be safely inferred that the\nreference made by DDIT (Inv.) for valuation of the properties was without any\nincriminating materials found during search [oral or documentary which could have\nsuggested that the assessee has shown less investment in its books for building\nconstruction] Therefore

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

2) TMI 459 - |TAT KOLKATA] From the\nperusal of panchnama and the assessment orders, it can be safely inferred that the\nreference made by DDIT (Inv.) for valuation of the properties was without any\nincriminating materials found during search [oral or documentary which could have\nsuggested that the assessee has shown less investment in its books for building\nconstruction] Therefore

SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

TDS amounting to Rs. 15,87,848/- corresponding to the interest income declared in the return and the compensation received. The case was processed under section 143(1) of the Act as such, thus, as on date the returned income stands to be assessed income and there was no mistake which was self evident and apparent from the record warranting

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

TDS amounting to Rs. 15,87,848/- corresponding to the interest income declared in the return and the compensation received. The case was processed under section 143(1) of the Act as such, thus, as on date the returned income stands to be assessed income and there was no mistake which was self evident and apparent from the record warranting

AMRIK SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

section 56(2)(viii)of the Act , Assessing officer assessed 50% of the interest received and made addition of Rs. 32,88,074/- (Rs. 34,56,224 - Rs. 1,68,250) as the assessee had shown interest of Rs. 1,68,150/- in original return filed on 15.12.2015. 4. In appeal, the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that

DARBARA SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

section 56(2)(viii)of the Act , Assessing officer assessed 50% of the interest received and made addition of Rs. 32,88,074/- (Rs. 34,56,224 - Rs. 1,68,250) as the assessee had shown interest of Rs. 1,68,150/- in original return filed on 15.12.2015. 4. In appeal, the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that

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

150 to take appropriate action u/s 148.\n9. Ground No. 9 and 10 - Carry forward of MAT credit against the demand raised\nconsequent to impugned addition made in assessment.\n10. Ground No. 11 - Transfer order u/s 127 dtd. 30.03.2018 was without sanction of\nlaw, hence bad in law\n11. Ground No. 12- Reasonable opportunity of being heard not given

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

150 to take appropriate action u/s 148.\n9. Ground No. 9 and 10 - Carry forward of MAT credit against the demand raised\nconsequent to impugned addition made in assessment.\n10. Ground No. 11 - Transfer order u/s 127 dtd. 30.03.2018 was without sanction of\nlaw, hence bad in law\n11. Ground No. 12- Reasonable opportunity of being heard not given

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

150 to take appropriate action u/s 148.\n9. Ground No. 9 and 10 - Carry forward of MAT credit against the demand raised\nconsequent to impugned addition made in assessment.\n10. Ground No. 11 - Transfer order u/s 127 dtd. 30.03.2018 was without sanction of\nlaw, hence bad in law\n11. Ground No. 12- Reasonable opportunity of being heard not given

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

150 to take appropriate action u/s 148.\n9. Ground No. 9 and 10 - Carry forward of MAT credit against the demand raised\nconsequent to impugned addition made in assessment.\n10. Ground No. 11 - Transfer order u/s 127 dtd. 30.03.2018 was without sanction of\nlaw, hence bad in law\n11. Ground No. 12- Reasonable opportunity of being heard not given

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

150 to take appropriate action u/s 148.\n9. Ground No. 9 and 10 - Carry forward of MAT credit against the demand raised\nconsequent to impugned addition made in assessment.\n10. Ground No. 11 - Transfer order u/s 127 dtd. 30.03.2018 was without sanction of\nlaw, hence bad in law\n11. Ground No. 12- Reasonable opportunity of being heard not given

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

150 to take appropriate action u/s 148.\n9. Ground No. 9 and 10 - Carry forward of MAT credit against the demand raised\nconsequent to impugned addition made in assessment.\n10. Ground No. 11 - Transfer order u/s 127 dtd. 30.03.2018 was without sanction of\nlaw, hence bad in law\n11. Ground No. 12- Reasonable opportunity of being heard not given