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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), 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

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

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

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

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

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

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

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

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

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

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

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

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

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

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

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

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

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

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

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

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

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

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , CHANDIGARH

5. 2. This position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Pr. CIT\nVs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38\nof the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do\nnot by themselves constitute incriminating material