SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

b) There was complete amalgamation of the Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. made through Calcutta High Court and the AO has not uttered a single word on this issue. c) The shares of Access Global Limited were allotted to the assessee as per the Calcutta High Court orders. The shares were received by the assessee in Demat Account. This fact

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

b) There was complete amalgamation of the Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. made through Calcutta High Court and the AO has not uttered a single word on this issue. c) The shares of Access Global Limited were allotted to the assessee as per the Calcutta High Court orders. The shares were received by the assessee in Demat Account. This fact

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

b) There was complete amalgamation of the Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. made through Calcutta High Court and the AO has not uttered a single word on this issue. c) The shares of Access Global Limited were allotted to the assessee as per the Calcutta High Court orders. The shares were received by the assessee in Demat Account. This fact

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. In case no incriminating material is found, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) v. Asst. CIT (supra), the earlier assessment would have to be reiterated. In case where pending assessments have abated, the Assessing Officer

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and/ or relevant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

B) Miscellaneous expenses. The explanation offered by the assessee is logical and plausible. We hold that lower authority before ordering addition of Rs. 2,52,41,328/- (Reducing deduction u/s 80IC) to assessed income of Rs. 26,09,88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

B) Miscellaneous expenses. The explanation offered by the assessee is logical and plausible. We hold that lower authority before ordering addition of Rs. 2,52,41,328/- (Reducing deduction u/s 80IC) to assessed income of Rs. 26,09,88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

B) Miscellaneous expenses. The explanation offered by the assessee is logical and plausible. We hold that lower authority before ordering addition of Rs. 2,52,41,328/- (Reducing deduction u/s 80IC) to assessed income of Rs. 26,09,88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

B) Miscellaneous expenses. The explanation offered by the assessee is logical and plausible. We hold that lower authority before ordering addition of Rs. 2,52,41,328/- (Reducing deduction u/s 80IC) to assessed income of Rs. 26,09,88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

B) Miscellaneous expenses. The explanation offered by the assessee is logical and plausible. We hold that lower authority before ordering addition of Rs. 2,52,41,328/- (Reducing deduction u/s 80IC) to assessed income of Rs. 26,09,88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

B) Miscellaneous expenses. The explanation offered by the assessee is logical and plausible. We hold that lower authority before ordering addition of Rs. 2,52,41,328/- (Reducing deduction u/s 80IC) to assessed income of Rs. 26,09,88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

B) Miscellaneous expenses. The explanation offered by the assessee is logical and plausible. We hold that lower authority before ordering addition of Rs. 2,52,41,328/- (Reducing deduction u/s 80IC) to assessed income of Rs. 26,09,88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

B) Miscellaneous expenses. The explanation offered by the assessee is logical and plausible. We hold that lower authority before ordering addition of Rs. 2,52,41,328/- (Reducing deduction u/s 80IC) to assessed income of Rs. 26,09,88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support

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

B’ CHANDIGARH\nBEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपीलसं./ITA No. 579/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18\n&\nआयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.582 to 584/CHD/ 2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17\n&\nआयकर अपीलसं./ITA No. 591/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\nMaxport India Pvt. Ltd.\nC/o Parikshit

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

B’ CHANDIGARH\nBEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 579/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18\n&\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.582 to 584/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17\n&\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 591/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\nMaxport India

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

B’ CHANDIGARH\nBEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 579/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18\n&\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.582 to 584/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17\n&\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 591/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\nMaxport India

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

B’ CHANDIGARH\nBEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 579/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18\n&\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.582 to 584/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17\n&\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 591/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\nMaxport India

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

B’ CHANDIGARH\nBEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 579/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18\n&\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.582 to 584/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17\n&\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 591/CHD/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\nMaxport India