KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

disallowing the current year business loss without pointing out any defect and further has erred in not allowing carried forward

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED 2000-1A, SUKHDEV NAGAR FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

disallowing the current year business loss without pointing out any defect and further has erred in not allowing carried forward

M/S EMM BEE FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

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

forward of losses which is arbitrary and unjustified.” 6. The issue is disallowance of claim of Long Term Capital Loss on sale of unquoted shares and not allowing carry

M/S EMM BEE FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

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

forward of losses which is arbitrary and unjustified.” 6. The issue is disallowance of claim of Long Term Capital Loss on sale of unquoted shares and not allowing carry

M/S EMM BEE FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

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

forward of losses which is arbitrary and unjustified.” 6. The issue is disallowance of claim of Long Term Capital Loss on sale of unquoted shares and not allowing carry

ALFA RADIOLOGICAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: JUSTICE (RETD) C.V. BHADANG (President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

carried forward to the subsequent year in the return filed by the assessee within the prescribed due date. It was submitted that ITA 644/CHD/2024 A.Y.2020-21 3 the CPC disallowed the adjustment of brought forward loss

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

carried out u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act in\nthe absence of any incriminating material found during the search action. He has further\nrelied upon various case laws to contend that the report of the DVO cannot be construed\nas an incriminating material found during the course of search action and further that\naddition cannot be made on account

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

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

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

carried out u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act in\nthe absence of any incriminating material found during the search action. He has further\nrelied upon various case laws to contend that the report of the DVO cannot be construed\nas an incriminating material found during the course of search action and further that\naddition cannot be made on account

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

carried out u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act in\nthe absence of any incriminating material found during the search action. He has further\nrelied upon various case laws to contend that the report of the DVO cannot be construed\nas an incriminating material found during the course of search action and further that\naddition cannot be made on account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. MS SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATOTRIES AND EDUCATION LTD., , CHANDIGARH

forwarded the copy of the report of the\nDVO to the Assessing Officer. The DVO vide his valuation report valued the property at\nRs.58.67 crores as against Rs.44. 51 crores declared by the assessee in its books. The\ndifferential amount of the year in question was computed in the same ratio in which the\nconstruction expenses were recorded by assessee

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

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

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

disallowances resulting in enhanced profits should still be eligible\nfor deduction under Chapter VI-A.\n78. The ld. Counsel has further contended that the department failed to apply the\nprinciple of telescoping, which allows for adjusting alleged undisclosed income against\nunexplained investments or expenditures. That, if the short stock was considered as sales\noutside the books, then the cash generated

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

disallowances resulting in enhanced profits should still be eligible\nfor deduction under Chapter VI-A.\n78. The ld. Counsel has further contended that the department failed to apply the\nprinciple of telescoping, which allows for adjusting alleged undisclosed income against\nunexplained investments or expenditures. That, if the short stock was considered as sales\noutside the books, then the cash generated

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

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs. 1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

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

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

carried\nout in three separate previous years relevant to different assessment years. The\nAssessing Officer had, therefore, divided the undisclosed investment in the cost\nof construction in these three years. Even if this be so, we fail to see how the total\nof these three years of expenditure could exceed Rs.1.22 lakhs which was the\ndifference between