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, 69B

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

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

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

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

69B by erroneously making enhancement u/s 251(1) regarding\nalleged understatement of investment in property at 28/6, Industrial Area, Phase –\n2, Chandigarh.\n62. The issue raised by the assessee in the above appeals relates to enhancement u/s\n251(1) regarding alleged understatement of investment in property at 28/6, Industrial\nArea, Phase-2, Chandigarh. During assessment proceedings u/s 153A

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 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

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

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

69B by erroneously making enhancement u/s 251(1) regarding\nalleged understatement of investment in property at 28/6, Industrial Area, Phase –\n2, Chandigarh.\n62. The issue raised by the assessee in the above appeals relates to enhancement u/s\n251(1) regarding alleged understatement of investment in property at 28/6, Industrial\nArea, Phase-2, Chandigarh. During assessment proceedings u/s 153A