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

158B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases Undisclosed\nincome - Assessment year 1999-2000- Whether where no incriminating material\nwhatsoever was found during search that might show that assessee had made more\ninvestment in properties than their declared value, addition could not be made by\ntreating investment as undisclosed on basis of any DVO's report

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

158B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases Undisclosed\nincome - Assessment year 1999-2000- Whether where no incriminating material\nwhatsoever was found during search that might show that assessee had made more\ninvestment in properties than their declared value, addition could not be made by\ntreating investment as undisclosed on basis of any DVO's report

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

158B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases Undisclosed\nincome - Assessment year 1999-2000- Whether where no incriminating material\nwhatsoever was found during search that might show that assessee had made more\ninvestment in properties than their declared value, addition could not be made by\ntreating investment as undisclosed on basis of any DVO's report

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

158B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases Undisclosed\nincome - Assessment year 1999-2000- Whether where no incriminating material\nwhatsoever was found during search that might show that assessee had made more\ninvestment in properties than their declared value, addition could not be made by\ntreating investment as undisclosed on basis of any DVO's report

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

158B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases Undisclosed\nincome - Assessment year 1999-2000- Whether where no incriminating material\nwhatsoever was found during search that might show that assessee had made more\ninvestment in properties than their declared value, addition could not be made by\ntreating investment as undisclosed on basis of any DVO's report

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

158B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases Undisclosed\nincome - Assessment year 1999-2000- Whether where no incriminating material\nwhatsoever was found during search that might show that assessee had made more\ninvestment in properties than their declared value, addition could not be made by\ntreating investment as undisclosed on basis of any DVO's report

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

Disallowance of 80IC on subsidy claimed in ITR.\nIssue 18 : Jewellery found at House no 2273, Sector 21C, Chandigarh & Locker no\n64, Bank of India, Sector 35, Chandigarh during the search.\n\n\n21\nIssue 19: Approval u/s 153D.\n4. Since common and identical issues are involved in most of the\ncaptioned appeals, hence we deem it appropriate to adjudicate

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

158B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases Undisclosed\nincome - Assessment year 1999-2000- Whether where no incriminating material\nwhatsoever was found during search that might show that assessee had made more\ninvestment in properties than their declared value, addition could not be made by\ntreating investment as undisclosed on basis of any DVO's report

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

Disallowance of 80IC on subsidy claimed in ITR.\nIssue 18 : Jewellery found at House no 2273, Sector 21C, Chandigarh & Locker no\n64, Bank of India, Sector 35, Chandigarh during the search.\n20\nIssue 19: Approval u/s 153D.\n4. Since common and identical issues are involved in most of the\ncaptioned appeals, hence we deem it appropriate to adjudicate the\nmatter

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

Disallowance of 80IC on subsidy claimed in ITR.\nIssue 18 : Jewellery found at House no 2273, Sector 21C, Chandigarh & Locker no\n64, Bank of India, Sector 35, Chandigarh during the search.\n21\nIssue 19: Approval u/s 153D.\n4. Since common and identical issues are involved in most of the\ncaptioned appeals, hence we deem it appropriate to adjudicate the\nmatter

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

Disallowance of 80IC on subsidy claimed in ITR.\nIssue 18 : Jewellery found at House no 2273, Sector 21C, Chandigarh & Locker no\n64, Bank of India, Sector 35, Chandigarh during the search.\n20\nIssue 19: Approval u/s 153D.\n4. Since common and identical issues are involved in most of the\ncaptioned appeals, hence we deem it appropriate to adjudicate the\nmatter

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

Disallowance of 80IC on subsidy claimed in ITR.\nIssue 18 : Jewellery found at House no 2273, Sector 21C, Chandigarh & Locker no\n64, Bank of India, Sector 35, Chandigarh during the search.\n\n20\n\nIssue 19: Approval u/s 153D.\n\n4. Since common and identical issues are involved in most of the\ncaptioned appeals, hence we deem it appropriate

DCIT, CC 1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

158B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases Undisclosed\nincome - Assessment year 1999-2000- Whether where no incriminating material\nwhatsoever was found during search that might show that assessee had made more\ninvestment in properties than their declared value, addition could not be made by\ntreating investment as undisclosed on basis of any DVO's report