AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

house wife and having no taxable income in AY 2010-11. However the AO made addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- in the hand of Baldev Kaur @ Gurdev Kaur vide order dated 23.03.2016. Similar addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- was made later on in the case of Ajmer Singh by issuing a notice u/s 148 and completing

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

house wife and having no taxable income in AY 2010-11. However the AO made addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- in the hand of Baldev Kaur @ Gurdev Kaur vide order dated 23.03.2016. Similar addition of Rs. 1,73,10,000/- was made later on in the case of Ajmer Singh by issuing a notice u/s 148 and completing

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak for subsequent periods otherwise

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

Housing Development & Co., 93 laxmann.com 502, Supreme\nCourt.\nii). DCIT vs. Entrack Organic Haus Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 182 of 2016, Rajasthan ITAT.\n...\n...\n...\n...\n41\n35. It was further contended alternatively, that a credit entry once added as\nincome in the hands of the assesse u/s 2(22)(e) should not be considered again while\ncalculating peak

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

property valuation as the property is situated in a jurisdiction where\nsuch rates are applicable. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has relied upon following\nJudicial pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala