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. 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. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble High Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).” 18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai Ambey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the said statements, there

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble High Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).” 18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai Ambey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the said statements, there

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

132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the hon’ble High Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).” 18. So far as the statement recorded of the employees/directors of third party ( Jai Ambey Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) in a separate search action is concerned, even in the said 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