DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. HOMELIFE BUILDCON PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

151 (now second proviso to section 148 after amendment by FA No 2 of 2024) * The Approvals in these sections are statuary approvals and not administrative. 16 As it is evident from the foregoing, the legislature has consistently maintained a distinct parity in the provisions related to assessments conducted in search cases across different regimes. In stark contrast, none

HOMELIFE BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SUNVIEW ENCLAVE, AYALI KALAN, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. SMT. SAMANDEEP KAUR DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali

151 (now second proviso to section 148 after amendment by FA No 2 of 2024) * The Approvals in these sections are statuary approvals and not administrative. 16 As it is evident from the foregoing, the legislature has consistently maintained a distinct parity in the provisions related to assessments conducted in search cases across different regimes. In stark contrast, none

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\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\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\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

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

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 as has been

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

2 of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and hence it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings in terms of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. Applicability of the provisions of section 147/151 to the facts of the case: In this case, a return of income

MASTER TRUST LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were thereafter initiated and notice under section 148 was issued on 30/03/2021 after seeking approval from JCIT Range-1, Ludhiana in terms of Section 151 of the Act. In response to the notice under section 148 dt. 30/03/2021, the assessee filed return of income on 28/04/2021 declaring total income of Rs. 54,81,240/- thereafter notice

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. M/S JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

151 and not accepting the contention of the assessee that the approval has been given in a mechanical manner. 2.1 Besides these grounds, the assessee also raised additional grounds; however, we are reproducing only those pressed before us during the course of hearing: “3. That the assessment framed under section 143(3) is bad in law, as it pertains

JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

151 and not accepting the contention of the assessee that the approval has been given in a mechanical manner. 2.1 Besides these grounds, the assessee also raised additional grounds; however, we are reproducing only those pressed before us during the course of hearing: “3. That the assessment framed under section 143(3) is bad in law, as it pertains

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

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

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 as has been

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

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 as has been

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

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 as has been

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

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 as has been

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

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 as has been

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

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 as has been

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

reassess the income of the\nother person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer\nis satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have\na bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment\nyears immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous