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)

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

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)

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

House No. 2368., Phase X, Mohali | | Central Circle-2, Chandigarh\n| Punjab-160055 | | \n| स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ALCPK6320J | | \n| अपीलार्थी/Appellant | | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\n\n| निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : | | Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &\n| | | Shri Virsain Aggarwal, ITP\n| राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : | | Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\n\n| सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

House No. 2368., Phase X, Mohali\n| Central Circle-2, Chandigarh\n| Punjab-160055\n| बंनाम\n| प्रत्यक्षती / Respondent\n| स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ALCPK6320J\n| अपीलार्थी/Appellant\n| निर्धिरिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\n| Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &\n| Shri Virsain Aggarwal, ITP\n| राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\n| Shri Manav Bansal

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

House No. 2368., Phase X, Mohali | | Central Circle-2, Chandigarh |\n| Punjab-160055 | | |\n| स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ALCPK6320J | | |\n| अपीलार्थी/ Appellant | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent |\n\n| निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : | Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &\n| | Shri Virsain Aggarwal, ITP |\n| राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : | Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR |\n\n| सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date

SMT. SHAKUNTLA DEVI,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property which has not been or would not have been disclosed by the assessee for purposes of the Act. It was further submitted that merely the statement of Shri Sunil Gupta that house hold expenses should be considered in the case of the assessee cannot be a basis for holding that certain undisclosed income belonging to the assessee has been

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

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners

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

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners

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

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nviii)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names

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

HOUSING AGENCY\nVERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), NAGPUR (Refer page no. 50-60 of case\nlaw index book)\nAssessment u/s 153A - only survey operation under section 133A - Whether\nvalid search is conducted against the assessee u/s 132? - HELD THAT:- We\nfind that the search has been initiated in the name of the assessee firm along\nwith names of partners

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

1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of\nreceiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the\nAssessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person”\n19. A perusal of the above provisions would reveal that section 153C starts with a\nnon-obstante clause which covers the provisions of section

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

houses of the managing director and\nother directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were\nfound to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining\nthem by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement\nfrom them by invoking the powers under section 132

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court