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)

house building scheme of the society, company or association, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the owner of that building or part thereof; (a) a person who is allowed to take or retain possession of any building or part thereof in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A

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-

house property, you intend to apply the provisions of Section 50C in the case of assessee In this regard, we wish to submit that the Agreement to Sell of this property was entered by the assessee in January, 2010 i.e. in assessment year 2010-11, when the collector rate o f the property in Sector 6, Panchkula was Rs.24

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

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

properties was without any\nincriminating materials found during search [oral or documentary which could have\nsuggested that the assessee has shown less investment in its books for building\nconstruction] Therefore, no addition was permissible in the assessment order u/s 153A\nof the Act in the case of un-abated assessments unless it is based on relevant\n56\nincriminating material found

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

properties, then the valuation arrived at by the DVO would be of no\nconsequence. Accordingly, in view of the above cited judicial precedents as well as the\nfactual finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessment year 2016-17, which, in our\nopinion, is both sound as well as logical, we have no hesitation in upholding the same.\nAccordingly

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

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

properties, then the valuation arrived at by the DVO would be of no\nconsequence. Accordingly, in view of the above cited judicial precedents as well as the\nfactual finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessment year 2016-17, which, in our\nopinion, is both sound as well as logical, we have no hesitation in upholding the same.\nAccordingly

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

properties, then the valuation arrived at by the DVO would be of no\nconsequence. Accordingly, in view of the above cited judicial precedents as well as the\nfactual finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessment year 2016-17, which, in our\nopinion, is both sound as well as logical, we have no hesitation in upholding the same.\nAccordingly