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

ia) was passed vide order, dated 27.02.2020 as per page 159 of the Paper\nBook.\n.\nA mere survey does not fulfil the statutory requirements for invoking section 153A\nof the Income Tax Act.\n.\nTherefore, the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction to initiate or proceed\nunder section 153A against the assessee.\n1.4\nThe company was constructing a Mall

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

ia) was passed vide order, dated 27.02.2020 as per page 159 of the Paper\nBook.\n•\nA mere survey does not fulfil the statutory requirements for invoking section 153A\nof the Income Tax Act.\nTherefore, the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction to initiate or proceed\nunder section 153A against the assessee.\n1.4\nThe company was constructing a Mall

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

ia) was passed vide order, dated 27.02.2020 as per page 159 of the Paper\nBook.\nA mere survey does not fulfil the statutory requirements for invoking section 153A\nof the Income Tax Act.\nTherefore, the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction to initiate or proceed\nunder section 153A against the assessee.\n1.4\nThe company was constructing a Mall

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have the responsibility

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have the responsibility

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

13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot constitute incriminating material found during the course of\nsearch. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that no addition could be made by placing\nreliance

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

property, to contract, and to sue or be sued in its own name, to\nexercise powers conferred on, and perform the functions assigned to it\nunder this Act.\n\n1. 3. Further, Section 24 of the Act (Relevant extract of Section 24 is\nmentioned at page 13 of the BOCW Act, 1996) lays down that the Board\nshall have

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

13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot constitute incriminating material found during the course of\nsearch. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that no addition could be made by placing\nreliance

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

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

13]\nSole basis of the addition is only the valuation report furnished by the DVO which has\nbeen obtained by the ld. AO during the course of search assessment proceedings. Then,\nthe said report cannot constitute incriminating material found during the course of\nsearch. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that no addition could be made by placing\nreliance

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

property solely on\nthe basis of DVO report without any other corroborating evidence or incriminating\nevidence found in support of such addition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sargam\n53\nCinema v. CIT (328 ITR 513) has held that a DVO’s report cannot be relied upon unless\nthe books of accounts are found to be incorrect. The Income

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

1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)\n(iii) Kay Jay Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Noida 2023 (8) Tmi 431:\nAssessment u/s 153A - Addition towards the cost of construction of the building -\nReference made to ld. DVO u/s 142A - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, no incriminating\nmaterial has been found during the course of search qua this

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

1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)\n(iii) Kay Jay Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Noida 2023 (8) Tmi 431:\nAssessment u/s 153A - Addition towards the cost of construction of the building -\nReference made to ld. DVO u/s 142A - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, no incriminating\nmaterial has been found during the course of search qua this

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

1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)\n(iii) Kay Jay Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Noida 2023 (8) Tmi 431:\nAssessment u/s 153A - Addition towards the cost of construction of the building -\nReference made to ld. DVO u/s 142A - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, no incriminating\nmaterial has been found during the course of search qua this

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

1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)\n(iii) Kay Jay Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Noida 2023 (8) Tmi 431:\nAssessment u/s 153A - Addition towards the cost of construction of the building -\nReference made to ld. DVO u/s 142A - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, no incriminating\nmaterial has been found during the course of search qua this

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

property solely on\nthe basis of DVO report without any other corroborating evidence or incriminating\nevidence found in support of such addition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sargam\nCinema v. CIT (328 ITR 513) has held that a DVO’s report cannot be relied upon unless\nthe books of accounts are found to be incorrect. The Income

SH.ANIL DHIWAN S/O SH.A.K.DHWAN vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Anil Dhawan, S/O Sh.A.K.Dhawan, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Moti Bazar, Mandi, Distt. Mandi (H.P.) Circle-Mandi (H.P.) Pan: Aejpd7188M (Appellant) (Respondent)

ia) of the I.T. Act is not sustainable ITA No No.1298/Chd/2016 14 A.Y. 2009-10 Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the impugned addition and consequently, this ground of appeal is treated as allowed.” 12. In the case of Gurpreet Singh Sethi (supra) the assessee was also an authorized dealer of BSNL selling its products. The I.T.A.T

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

1. during survey u./s 133A on 7th & 8th of December, 2009, which was annexurised as A-5. This day book for A.Y. 2007-08 was computerized and ledger and cash books were prepared, copy of which was handed to the assessee for its comments. But it failed to substantiate the same. Explanation furnished by the assessee is not accepted