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)

150 taxmann.com 108 (SC) wherein the legal proposition so laid down in Abhisar Buildwell has been subsequently followed and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, our particular reference was drawn to decisions in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shardaben Arvindbhai Patel [2023] 152 Taxmann.com 535 (Guj HC), Pr. CIT Vs. Ms. Kavita Agarwal [2022] 143 Taxmann.com

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)

u/s 68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

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)

u/s 68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

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)

u/s 68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

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)

u/s 68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

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)

u/s 68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the\nAct, the existence of information suggesting escapement of income\n37\ncontinues to be a foundational jurisdictional requirement. The Hon'ble\nCourt clarified that the benchmark under the amended law remains\naligned with the earlier threshold of “reason to believe,” and that the\npower under Section 147 cannot be invoked in the absence

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the\nAct, the existence of information suggesting escapement of income\ncontinues to be a foundational jurisdictional requirement. The Hon'ble\nCourt clarified that the benchmark under the amended law remains\naligned with the earlier threshold of “reason to believe,” and that the\npower under Section 147 cannot be invoked in the absence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the\nAct, the existence of information suggesting escapement of income\n\n37\ncontinues to be a foundational jurisdictional requirement. The Hon'ble\nCourt clarified that the benchmark under the amended law remains\naligned with the earlier threshold of “reason to believe,” and that the\npower under Section 147 cannot be invoked

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the\nAct, the existence of information suggesting escapement of income\n37\ncontinues to be a foundational jurisdictional requirement. The Hon'ble\nCourt clarified that the benchmark under the amended law remains\naligned with the earlier threshold of “reason to believe,” and that the\npower under Section 147 cannot be invoked in the absence

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 148 is being obtained separately from the Pr. Commissioner of Income tax-8, New Delhi as per the provisions of the section 151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 9. In view of the above reasons, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the only charge of the AO in the reasons recorded is that the assessee

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

150 to take appropriate action u/s 148. 9. Ground No. 9 and 10 - Carry forward of MAT credit against the demand raised consequent to impugned addition made in assessment. 10. Ground No. 11 - Transfer order u/s 127 dtd. 30.03.2018 was without sanction of law, hence bad in law 11. Ground No. 12- Reasonable opportunity of being heard not given

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

150 to take appropriate action u/s 148. 9. Ground No. 9 and 10 - Carry forward of MAT credit against the demand raised consequent to impugned addition made in assessment. 10. Ground No. 11 - Transfer order u/s 127 dtd. 30.03.2018 was without sanction of law, hence bad in law 11. Ground No. 12- Reasonable opportunity of being heard not given

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

150 to take appropriate action u/s 148. 9. Ground No. 9 and 10 - Carry forward of MAT credit against the demand raised consequent to impugned addition made in assessment. 10. Ground No. 11 - Transfer order u/s 127 dtd. 30.03.2018 was without sanction of law, hence bad in law 11. Ground No. 12- Reasonable opportunity of being heard not given

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

150 to take appropriate action u/s 148.\n9. Ground No. 9 and 10 - Carry forward of MAT credit against the demand raised\nconsequent to impugned addition made in assessment.\n10. Ground No. 11 - Transfer order u/s 127 dtd. 30.03.2018 was without sanction of\nlaw, hence bad in law\n11. Ground No. 12- Reasonable opportunity of being heard not given

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

150(1)(2) for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13.\nIssue 6: Shortage of stock found during search held as undisclosed sale.\nIssue 7: Commission/profit earned at estimated rate of 1% of total alleged sales and\npurchases, allegedly conducted outside books.\nIssue 8: Addition made by Ld. AO of Rs. 58,09,346/- by disallowing deduction u/s\n80IC on account

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

150(1)(2) for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13.\nIssue 6: Shortage of stock found during search held as undisclosed sale.\nIssue 7: Commission/profit earned at estimated rate of 1% of total alleged sales and\npurchases, allegedly conducted outside books.\nIssue 8: Addition made by Ld. AO of Rs. 58,09,346/- by disallowing deduction u/s\n80IC on account

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

150(1)(2) for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13.\nIssue 6: Shortage of stock found during search held as undisclosed sale.\nIssue 7: Commission/profit earned at estimated rate of 1% of total alleged sales and\npurchases, allegedly conducted outside books.\nIssue 8: Addition made by Ld. AO of Rs. 58,09,346/- by disallowing deduction u/s\n80IC on account

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

150 to take appropriate action u/s 148.\n9. Ground No. 9 and 10 - Carry forward of MAT credit against the demand raised\nconsequent to impugned addition made in assessment.\n10. Ground No. 11 - Transfer order u/s 127 dtd. 30.03.2018 was without sanction of\nlaw, hence bad in law\n11. Ground No. 12- Reasonable opportunity of being heard not given