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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs. 2435095/- on payment of interest of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- under section 194A. Further scrutiny of the case records revealed that as per profit & loss account, total expenditure was Rs. 1,40,14,722/- (expenditure on interest was only 11053024) against expenditure of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- on interest alone. This expenditure

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

220/- (363575535-358675315) while calculating the Total Income. 2. The assessee company has maintained books of accounts on mercantile basis and all the expenses has been incurred by the respective unit for their business purposes. 3. Both these units are independent on account of source of supply of Raw Material, Bank transactions, staff, different items being manufactured, different suppliers / buyers

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

220/- (363575535-358675315) while calculating the Total Income. 2. The assessee company has maintained books of accounts on mercantile basis and all the expenses has been incurred by the respective unit for their business purposes. 3. Both these units are independent on account of source of supply of Raw Material, Bank transactions, staff, different items being manufactured, different suppliers / buyers

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

220/- (363575535-358675315) while calculating the Total Income. 2. The assessee company has maintained books of accounts on mercantile basis and all the expenses has been incurred by the respective unit for their business purposes. 3. Both these units are independent on account of source of supply of Raw Material, Bank transactions, staff, different items being manufactured, different suppliers / buyers

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

220/- (363575535-358675315) while calculating the Total Income. 2. The assessee company has maintained books of accounts on mercantile basis and all the expenses has been incurred by the respective unit for their business purposes. 3. Both these units are independent on account of source of supply of Raw Material, Bank transactions, staff, different items being manufactured, different suppliers / buyers