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

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,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)

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

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

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

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

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

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,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

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

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

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,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

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).”\n\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

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