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

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 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

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. 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

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

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. 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

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

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

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,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

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

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

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

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

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

e-Assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely, (i) reduction of income in the revised return coupled with claim of refund, and (ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

e-Assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely, (i) reduction of income in the revised return coupled with claim of refund, and (ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

e-Assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely, (i) reduction of income in the revised return coupled with claim of refund, and (ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

e-Assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely, (i) reduction of income in the revised return coupled with claim of refund, and (ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee