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

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

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. 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

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

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,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

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

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. 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

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

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

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

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

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,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\n\n53\n\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

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

KANWALDEEP KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

73,560/- on 30/07/2017 which was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act at the declared income. It was seen by the AO that the assessee had purchased an immovable Property during the year under consideration at Rs. 4,00,00,000/- and the value of the property adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI vs. GURTEJ SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

73,560/- on 30/07/2017 which was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act at the declared income. It was seen by the AO that the assessee had purchased an immovable Property during the year under consideration at Rs. 4,00,00,000/- and the value of the property adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

section 2(24)\n28A, as under:\n(iii) agricultural land55 in India, not being land situate-\n(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a\nmunicipality55 (whether known as a municipality, municipal\ncorporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town\ncommittee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and\nwhich has a population56

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation