DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

disallowances made are discussed as under:- ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 4 From the perusal of sale deed, it was noticed that (i) the assessee had sold a residential property bearing No. 595, Sector 6, Panchkula for a consideration of Rs.2,42.00,000/- whereas the value of stamp duty was assessed by the valuation authority on the value of Rs.3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. SUNIL KUMAR SOOD, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

disallow indexing of the cost of land sold, during the year on surmises and conjectures just to levy more capital gain tax during the year under consideration. DECISION 5.2.3 I have considered the reasoning given by the AO in assessment order, submissions & documents submitted by the appellant, facts of the case and legal position. Brief Facts : (i) The brief facts

ROPAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,MOHALI vs. PCIT, CHANDIGAR-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), shall be deemed to be the owner of that building or part thereof; (b) a person who acquires any rights (excluding any rights by way of a lease from month to month or for a period not exceeding one year) in or with respect to any building or part

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the surrender is not covered u./s 132(4) of the Act as per the provisions of section 271AAA(4)(b) since the impugned year is not the search

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the surrender is not covered u./s 132(4) of the Act as per the provisions of section 271AAA(4)(b) since the impugned year is not the search

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

Section 69B of the Act. In absence of any other material on\nrecord, addition was correctly deleted. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”\n11. A perusal of the above judgments would indicate that mere valuation report is not\nsufficient to conclude that the assessee has made unexplained investment. From perusal\nof the assessment, nowhere it reveals that inspite of search, Revenue

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

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

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

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

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

section 158BD calling upon assessee to file return of undisclosed income\nfor block period 1-4-1989 to 28-1-2000 - Thereafter, valuation of cost of construction of\nbuildings constructed by assessee-firm was referred to DVO, for valuation under section\n133(6) - Assessing Officer added difference in valuation of cost of construction adopted\nby assessee-firm

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

53A. Now, in a further attempt at deviating the procedural fetters prescribed u/s 142, the Special Counsel has filed such additional evidence, by completely ignoring that the very same rigours of Sec. 142 will also apply to such additional evidence that has been recorded by a separate governmental department (the ED) under a separate Statute (the PMLA). 13. The Appellants

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

53A. Now, in a further attempt at deviating the procedural fetters prescribed u/s 142, the Special Counsel has filed such additional evidence, by completely ignoring that the very same rigours of Sec. 142 will also apply to such additional evidence that has been recorded by a separate governmental department (the ED) under a separate Statute (the PMLA). 13. The Appellants

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

53A. Now, in a further attempt at deviating the procedural fetters prescribed u/s 142, the Special Counsel has filed such additional evidence, by completely ignoring that the very same rigours of Sec. 142 will also apply to such additional evidence that has been recorded by a separate governmental department (the ED) under a separate Statute (the PMLA). 13. The Appellants

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

53A. Now, in a further attempt at deviating the procedural fetters prescribed u/s 142, the Special Counsel has filed such additional evidence, by completely ignoring that the very same rigours of Sec. 142 will also apply to such additional evidence that has been recorded by a separate governmental department (the ED) under a separate Statute (the PMLA). 13. The Appellants

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

53A. Now, in a further attempt at deviating the procedural fetters prescribed u/s 142, the Special Counsel has filed such additional evidence, by completely ignoring that the very same rigours of Sec. 142 will also apply to such additional evidence that has been recorded by a separate governmental department (the ED) under a separate Statute (the PMLA). 13. The Appellants

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

53A. Now, in a further attempt at deviating the procedural fetters prescribed u/s 142, the Special Counsel has filed such additional evidence, by completely ignoring that the very same rigours of Sec. 142 will also apply to such additional evidence that has been recorded by a separate governmental department (the ED) under a separate Statute (the PMLA). 13. The Appellants

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

53A. Now, in a further attempt at deviating the procedural fetters prescribed u/s 142, the Special Counsel has filed such additional evidence, by completely ignoring that the very same rigours of Sec. 142 will also apply to such additional evidence that has been recorded by a separate governmental department (the ED) under a separate Statute (the PMLA). 13. The Appellants

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

53A. Now, in a further attempt at deviating the procedural fetters prescribed u/s 142, the Special Counsel has filed such additional evidence, by completely ignoring that the very same rigours of Sec. 142 will also apply to such additional evidence that has been recorded by a separate governmental department (the ED) under a separate Statute (the PMLA). 13. The Appellants

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

53A. Now, in a further attempt at deviating the procedural fetters prescribed u/s 142, the Special Counsel has filed such additional evidence, by completely ignoring that the very same rigours of Sec. 142 will also apply to such additional evidence that has been recorded by a separate governmental department (the ED) under a separate Statute (the PMLA). 13. The Appellants