M/S VENKATESH TECHNOKRAFT PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(5), LUDHIANA

Bench: Him Which Is Arbitrary & Unjustified. 3. That The Assessment Order Having Been Passed By The Assessing Officer After Due Application Of Mind & Taking Into Consideration The Various Replies, Material On Record & Books Of Account, The Action Resorted To By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Unwarranted & Uncalled For.

196 of the assessee’s paper book, therefore it was not a case of lack of enquiry and only on the suspicion, the assessment order framed by the A.O. after the proper enquiry and application of mind, cannot be set aside, the reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi

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

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

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 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 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

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

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

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

196/-in FY 2010-11 to Rs. 3,74,85,335/- in 2011-12. Thus there was an ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) increase in receipts of Rs. 76,28,139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

196/-in FY 2010-11 to Rs. 3,74,85,335/- in 2011-12. Thus there was an ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) increase in receipts of Rs. 76,28,139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

196/-in FY 2010-11 to Rs. 3,74,85,335/- in 2011-12. Thus there was an ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) increase in receipts of Rs. 76,28,139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

196/-in FY 2010-11 to Rs. 3,74,85,335/- in 2011-12. Thus there was an ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) increase in receipts of Rs. 76,28,139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

196/-in FY 2010-11 to Rs. 3,74,85,335/- in 2011-12. Thus there was an ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) increase in receipts of Rs. 76,28,139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

196/-in FY 2010-11 to Rs. 3,74,85,335/- in 2011-12. Thus there was an ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) increase in receipts of Rs. 76,28,139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

196/-in FY 2010-11 to Rs. 3,74,85,335/- in 2011-12. Thus there was an ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) increase in receipts of Rs. 76,28,139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

196/-in FY 2010-11 to Rs. 3,74,85,335/- in 2011-12. Thus there was an ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) increase in receipts of Rs. 76,28,139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt