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

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search

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

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search

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

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search

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

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

153-C.” 4. The brief facts are that a search & seizure operation was conducted on Bakshi Group of cases including the assessee on 10.12.2012 under Section 132 of the Act and consequent to the same, assessment under Section 153A r.w. section 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 31.03.2015 originally. Subsequently, second search under Section

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

153(1) has lapsed and the return of income has been filed only after issuing of notice under section 153A of the Act and Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

153(1) has lapsed and the return of income has been filed only after issuing of notice under section 153A of the Act and Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

153(1) has lapsed and the return of income has been filed only after issuing of notice under section 153A of the Act and Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

153(1) has lapsed and the return of income has been filed only after issuing of notice under section 153A of the Act and Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

153(1) has lapsed and the return of income has been filed only after issuing of notice under section 153A of the Act and Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

153(1) has lapsed and the return of income has been filed only after issuing of notice under section 153A of the Act and Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) have been invoked. In this regard, it was submitted that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the return of income

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

TDS particulars was wholly unjustified. [Para 7] As regards second ground for reopening the assessment, the dividend income received during the year was claimed as exempt and the same was accepted in the assessment order passed under section 143(3). The reason for reopening the assessment was that in the absence of particulars it could not be said that

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

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

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

section 80IC of the Act. Subject to above observations, this\nissue is decided in favour of the revenue.\nIssue 9 : Credits received from JAAPL and Disallowance u/s 80IC - GP earned on sale made\nto JAPPL on account of alleged bogus nature of sales to JAPPL.\n98. Following is the list of cases involving this issue :-\nSr.\nNo\n.\nName

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

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

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

section 80IC of the Act. Subject to above observations, this\nissue is decided in favour of the revenue.\nIssue 9 : Credits received from JAAPL and Disallowance u/s 80IC - GP earned on sale made\nto JAPPL on account of alleged bogus nature of sales to JAPPL.\n98. Following is the list of cases involving this issue :-\nSr.\nNo\n.\nName