PAWAN KUMAR,AMBALA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS, Labour is reconciled with sales tax and market fees. Assessee has only commission income which is cross verified with GST Records, DFSC Records, 26AS and there is no other source of income. Addition made is wrong and against the facts of the case may kindly be deleted. Addition made under section 68, 69, 69A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

69A of the Act is hereby deleted and accordingly ground 3 is allowed. 5.10. In ground 4, the appellant tends to challenge the computational errors committed by the AO. During the appellant proceedings, this ground is not pressed by the appellant and accordingly is dismissed. 5.11. In ground 5 the appellant craves for the right to add, delete or amend

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS while making payment and as such\nGurpreet Kaur is seller/deductee and as such there is no question of\nanycapital gain out of said transactions.\n\n4.6 Thereafter we observe and note that there was issuance of yet\nanother show cause notice dt. 15/03/2022 calling upon the assessee\nto show cause as to why the proposed variation should

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS was deducted was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). 16.7 The Ld. DR in addition to placing reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), argued that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the huge drop in the GP rate from earlier years, the assessee failed to give any plausible explanation. Further

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS was deducted was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). 16.7 The Ld. DR in addition to placing reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), argued that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the huge drop in the GP rate from earlier years, the assessee failed to give any plausible explanation. Further

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS was deducted was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). 16.7 The Ld. DR in addition to placing reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), argued that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the huge drop in the GP rate from earlier years, the assessee failed to give any plausible explanation. Further

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS was deducted was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). 16.7 The Ld. DR in addition to placing reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), argued that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the huge drop in the GP rate from earlier years, the assessee failed to give any plausible explanation. Further

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS was deducted was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). 16.7 The Ld. DR in addition to placing reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), argued that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the huge drop in the GP rate from earlier years, the assessee failed to give any plausible explanation. Further

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS was deducted was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). 16.7 The Ld. DR in addition to placing reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), argued that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the huge drop in the GP rate from earlier years, the assessee failed to give any plausible explanation. Further

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS was deducted was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). 16.7 The Ld. DR in addition to placing reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), argued that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the huge drop in the GP rate from earlier years, the assessee failed to give any plausible explanation. Further

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

TDS was deducted was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). 16.7 The Ld. DR in addition to placing reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), argued that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the huge drop in the GP rate from earlier years, the assessee failed to give any plausible explanation. Further

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 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

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

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 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 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

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

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