ITO, WARD, SIRHIND vs. SH. KESAR SINGH, SIRHIND

The appeals of the Revenue is allowed whereas Cross

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

245D; or (iii) .............. ; or iv) ................. , the proceedings before the Settlement Commission shall abate on the specified date." Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, "specified date" means - (a)………. (b) in respect of an application referred to in clause (ii), the 31st day of July, 2007; ( c ) … … … … . . ; (d) ..................... " 15. Section 245(HA)(4) r.w.s. 2nd proviso to section

DCIT, CIRCLE, MANDI GOBINGARH vs. SH. GURINDERJIT SINGH, SIRHIND

The appeals of the Revenue is allowed whereas Cross

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

245D; or (iii) .............. ; or iv) ................. , the proceedings before the Settlement Commission shall abate on the specified date." Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, "specified date" means - (a)………. (b) in respect of an application referred to in clause (ii), the 31st day of July, 2007; ( c ) … … … … . . ; (d) ..................... " 15. Section 245(HA)(4) r.w.s. 2nd proviso to section

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

245D(4) for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2011-12 in the case of M/s BPSL and gave the following decision relating to income surrendered by the Assessee in the individual capacity: “19.5 It may be mentioned that Shri Sanjay Singhal and Smt. Arti Singhal have in their individual hands made a declaration of Rs. 239,11,90,780/-. After

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

245D(4) for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2011-12 in the case of M/s BPSL and gave the following decision relating to income surrendered by the Assessee in the individual capacity: “19.5 It may be mentioned that Shri Sanjay Singhal and Smt. Arti Singhal have in their individual hands made a declaration of Rs. 239,11,90,780/-. After

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

245D(4) for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2011-12 in the case of M/s BPSL and gave the following decision relating to income surrendered by the Assessee in the individual capacity: “19.5 It may be mentioned that Shri Sanjay Singhal and Smt. Arti Singhal have in their individual hands made a declaration of Rs. 239,11,90,780/-. After

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

245D(4) for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2011-12 in the case of M/s BPSL and gave the following decision relating to income surrendered by the Assessee in the individual capacity: “19.5 It may be mentioned that Shri Sanjay Singhal and Smt. Arti Singhal have in their individual hands made a declaration of Rs. 239,11,90,780/-. After

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

245D(4) for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2011-12 in the case of M/s BPSL and gave the following decision relating to income surrendered by the Assessee in the individual capacity: “19.5 It may be mentioned that Shri Sanjay Singhal and Smt. Arti Singhal have in their individual hands made a declaration of Rs. 239,11,90,780/-. After

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

245D(4) for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2011-12 in the case of M/s BPSL and gave the following decision relating to income surrendered by the Assessee in the individual capacity: “19.5 It may be mentioned that Shri Sanjay Singhal and Smt. Arti Singhal have in their individual hands made a declaration of Rs. 239,11,90,780/-. After

RADHIKA GOEL,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

245D(1) of the Act and not covered in this order.". Thus, the contention of the appellant that no amount can be added to income when source has already been taxed with regard to undisclosed income M/s Radhika Traders cannot be accepted in view of the Hon'ble ITSC's order discussed above. Further, the cognizance of revised return filed

RADHIKA GOEL,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

245D(1) of the Act and not covered in this order.". Thus, the contention of the appellant that no amount can be added to income when source has already been taxed with regard to undisclosed income M/s Radhika Traders cannot be accepted in view of the Hon'ble ITSC's order discussed above. Further, the cognizance of revised return filed

ANJULA GOEL ,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

245D(1) of the Act and not covered in this order.". Thus, the contention of the appellant that no amount can be added to income when source has already been taxed with regard to undisclosed income M/s Radhika Traders cannot be accepted in view of the Hon'ble ITSC's order discussed above. Further, the cognizance of revised return filed