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)

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (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)

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (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)

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (Page

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)

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (Page

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,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)

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (Page

DHUNI CHAND HUF,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)

TDS), Ludhiana vs. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Ltd. (pages 106-117 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 dated 07.02.2018 ITO v. Sh. Nachhattar Singh (pages 118-135 of JPB) v) ITA No. 1413 to 1415/Chd/2016 dated 09.07.2018 Sh. Satbir Singh & others v. ITO (pages 136-143 of JPB) vi) ITA No. 648/Chd/ 2018 dated 20.9.2018 Balwinder Singh vs. PCIT (Page

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

277/-; that fresh evidences in her case were of Rs.2,76,49,139/-. Payment of Rs.4,12,67,415/- was credited. However, there was “nil” balance as on 31.03.2015. These details have been filed at APB-34, in Form No. 3CD, issued by the auditor, as per the requirements of the provisions of Section 44AB

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

277/-; that fresh evidences in her case were of Rs.2,76,49,139/-. Payment of Rs.4,12,67,415/- was credited. However, there was “nil” balance as on 31.03.2015. These details have been filed at APB-34, in Form No. 3CD, issued by the auditor, as per the requirements of the provisions of Section 44AB

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

277/-; that fresh evidences in her case were of Rs.2,76,49,139/-. Payment of Rs.4,12,67,415/- was credited. However, there was “nil” balance as on 31.03.2015. These details have been filed at APB-34, in Form No. 3CD, issued by the auditor, as per the requirements of the provisions of Section 44AB

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 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, 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

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

277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany

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

277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany

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

277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany

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

277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany

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

277 CTR 338, Karnataka ITAT.\nd. CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd., 318 ITR 376, Delhi HC\ne. Smt. Jamuna Vernekar Vs. DCIT (2021) 432 ITR 146 (Kar HC),\n33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, thus, has contended that it has been held in the\nabove referred to decisions that if the transactions between a shareholder and the\ncompany