CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

seizure operation and cancellation of registration should not be done till the final assessment is completed. ii) The activities of the assessee trust are genuine and are being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust. Hence, the registration granted to the trust cannot be cancelled under the provisions of section 12AA

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

Trust, yet it was admitted fact that no search\noperation was conducted in premises of assessee - Besides, no panchnama was\ndrawn in pursuance of warrant of authorization in name of assessee in his\nindividual capacity - Whether, on facts, conditions precedent for initiating\nproceedings under section 153A against assessee in his individual status were\nnot complied with and, therefore, impugned proceedings

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

Trust, yet it was admitted fact that no search\noperation was conducted in premises of assessee - Besides, no panchnama was\ndrawn in pursuance of warrant of authorization in name of assessee in his\nindividual capacity - Whether, on facts, conditions precedent for initiating\nproceedings under section 153A against assessee in his individual status were\nnot complied with and, therefore, impugned proceedings

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

Trust, yet it was admitted fact that no search\noperation was conducted in premises of assessee - Besides, no panchnama was\ndrawn in pursuance of warrant of authorization in name of assessee in his\nindividual capacity - Whether, on facts, conditions precedent for initiating\nproceedings under section 153A against assessee in his individual status were\nnot complied with and, therefore, impugned proceedings

SH. LACHHMAN DASS BANSAL,BARNALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Charitable Trust reported at [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) as under: "Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

seizure of Rs. 35 lacs was made from Sh. Parshotam Lai on 2112.2019 by Police Authorities. Statement before ITO (Inv.) In the preliminary statement recorded by the ITO (Inv.), on 21.12.2019, the assesee deposed as under: Said money belonged to his employer Sh. Surinder Kumar r/o Ludhiana; I. II. He denied having any address of his employer; III. Sh. Surinder

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

seizure of Rs. 35 lacs was made from Sh. Parshotam Lai on 2112.2019 by Police Authorities. Statement before ITO (Inv.) In the preliminary statement recorded by the ITO (Inv.), on 21.12.2019, the assesee deposed as under: Said money belonged to his employer Sh. Surinder Kumar r/o Ludhiana; I. II. He denied having any address of his employer; III. Sh. Surinder

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

seizure of Rs. 35 lacs was made from Sh. Parshotam Lai on 2112.2019 by Police Authorities. Statement before ITO (Inv.) In the preliminary statement recorded by the ITO (Inv.), on 21.12.2019, the assesee deposed as under: Said money belonged to his employer Sh. Surinder Kumar r/o Ludhiana; I. II. He denied having any address of his employer; III. Sh. Surinder

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

seizure of Rs. 35 lacs was made from Sh. Parshotam Lai on 2112.2019 by Police Authorities. Statement before ITO (Inv.) In the preliminary statement recorded by the ITO (Inv.), on 21.12.2019, the assesee deposed as under: Said money belonged to his employer Sh. Surinder Kumar r/o Ludhiana; I. II. He denied having any address of his employer; III. Sh. Surinder

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

seizure of Rs. 35 lacs was made from Sh. Parshotam Lai on 2112.2019 by Police Authorities. Statement before ITO (Inv.) In the preliminary statement recorded by the ITO (Inv.), on 21.12.2019, the assesee deposed as under: Said money belonged to his employer Sh. Surinder Kumar r/o Ludhiana; I. II. He denied having any address of his employer; III. Sh. Surinder

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

seizure of Rs. 35 lacs was made from Sh. Parshotam Lai on 2112.2019 by Police Authorities. Statement before ITO (Inv.) In the preliminary statement recorded by the ITO (Inv.), on 21.12.2019, the assesee deposed as under: Said money belonged to his employer Sh. Surinder Kumar r/o Ludhiana; I. II. He denied having any address of his employer; III. Sh. Surinder

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

seizure of Rs. 35 lacs was made from Sh. Parshotam Lai on 2112.2019 by Police Authorities. Statement before ITO (Inv.) In the preliminary statement recorded by the ITO (Inv.), on 21.12.2019, the assesee deposed as under: Said money belonged to his employer Sh. Surinder Kumar r/o Ludhiana; I. II. He denied having any address of his employer; III. Sh. Surinder

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

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

search & seizure ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 34 operation carried out in the case of “N.K.Proteins”, during which, various incriminating documents including blank “check books in the name of different entities” were found which conclusively proved that the assessee had not made any purchases; that it was in the context of these facts that

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

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

search & seizure ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 34 operation carried out in the case of “N.K.Proteins”, during which, various incriminating documents including blank “check books in the name of different entities” were found which conclusively proved that the assessee had not made any purchases; that it was in the context of these facts that

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

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

search & seizure ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 34 operation carried out in the case of “N.K.Proteins”, during which, various incriminating documents including blank “check books in the name of different entities” were found which conclusively proved that the assessee had not made any purchases; that it was in the context of these facts that