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 - General (Retraction of statement) - Assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 - Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) and later, confirmed in statement recorded under section 131, cannot be discarded simply by observing that assessees have retracted same

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

income from Sushma Buildtech Ltd, Chandigarh, Mona Township Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi and GSC Estates Sector 22D, Chandigarh, it is observed that even if AO is convinced that the commission income is not genuine then he/she is at liberty to initiate action against the individuals by perusing their returns of income. The persons referred above have earned the income from

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

income from Sushma Buildtech Ltd, Chandigarh, Mona Township Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi and GSC Estates Sector 22D, Chandigarh, it is observed that even if AO is convinced that the commission income is not genuine then he/she is at liberty to initiate action against the individuals by perusing their returns of income. The persons referred above have earned the income from

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

income from Sushma Buildtech Ltd, Chandigarh, Mona Township Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi and GSC Estates Sector 22D, Chandigarh, it is observed that even if AO is convinced that the commission income is not genuine then he/she is at liberty to initiate action against the individuals by perusing their returns of income. The persons referred above have earned the income from

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

income from Sushma Buildtech Ltd, Chandigarh, Mona Township Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi and GSC Estates Sector 22D, Chandigarh, it is observed that even if AO is convinced that the commission income is not genuine then he/she is at liberty to initiate action against the individuals by perusing their returns of income. The persons referred above have earned the income from

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

income from Sushma Buildtech Ltd, Chandigarh, Mona Township Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi and GSC Estates Sector 22D, Chandigarh, it is observed that even if AO is convinced that the commission income is not genuine then he/she is at liberty to initiate action against the individuals by perusing their returns of income. The persons referred above have earned the income from

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

income from Sushma Buildtech Ltd, Chandigarh, Mona Township Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi and GSC Estates Sector 22D, Chandigarh, it is observed that even if AO is convinced that the commission income is not genuine then he/she is at liberty to initiate action against the individuals by perusing their returns of income. The persons referred above have earned the income from

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

income from Sushma Buildtech Ltd, Chandigarh, Mona Township Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi and GSC Estates Sector 22D, Chandigarh, it is observed that even if AO is convinced that the commission income is not genuine then he/she is at liberty to initiate action against the individuals by perusing their returns of income. The persons referred above have earned the income from

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

income from Sushma Buildtech Ltd, Chandigarh, Mona Township Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi and GSC Estates Sector 22D, Chandigarh, it is observed that even if AO is convinced that the commission income is not genuine then he/she is at liberty to initiate action against the individuals by perusing their returns of income. The persons referred above have earned the income from

ANIL KUMAR,UNA vs. ITO, UNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

Charitable Trust. On being asked to explain the sources of the aforesaid expenditure incurred on fee of his daughter, the assessee could explain the source of the amount of Rs. 9,61,670/-. So far as the remaining amount of Rs. 4,08,330/- was concerned, the assessee explained that the amount of Rs. 3 lacs was received