SH. AKHIL 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)

132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises of M/s Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Group of cases on 26/02/2016 and the assessee premises were also searched on the said date. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was centralized and notice under section 153(A) dt. 28/09/2016 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice

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)

132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises of M/s Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Group of cases on 26/02/2016 and the assessee premises were also searched on the said date. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was centralized and notice under section 153(A) dt. 28/09/2016 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice

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)

132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises of M/s Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Group of cases on 26/02/2016 and the assessee premises were also searched on the said date. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was centralized and notice under section 153(A) dt. 28/09/2016 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice

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)

132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises of M/s Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Group of cases on 26/02/2016 and the assessee premises were also searched on the said date. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was centralized and notice under section 153(A) dt. 28/09/2016 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble\nHigh Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).”\n18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai\nAmbey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the\nsaid statements, there