ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

153, assessee or reassess such income and also any\nother income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which\ncomes to his notice subsequently in course of the proceedings under this section,\nor recomputed the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as\nthe case may be, for the A.Y. concerned\".\nA bare perusal of the above

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

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

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

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. 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)

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. 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

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)

153-C.” 4. The brief facts are that a search & seizure operation was conducted on Bakshi Group of cases including the assessee on 10.12.2012 under Section 132 of the Act and consequent to the same, assessment under Section 153A r.w. section 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 31.03.2015 originally. Subsequently, second search under Section

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

153 referred to as\nthe relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment\nunder sub-section (3) of section 143 or\nthis section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action\nshall be taken under this section after\nthe expiry of four years from the end\nof the relevant assessment years,\nunless any income chargeable to tax\nhas

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

153 referred to as\nthe relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment\nunder sub-section (3) of section 143 or\nthis section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action\nshall be taken under this section after\nthe expiry of four years from the end\nof the relevant assessment years,\nunless any income chargeable to tax\nhas

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

153 referred to as\nthe relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment\nunder sub-section (3) of section 143 or\nthis section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action\nshall be taken under this section after\nthe expiry of four years from the end\nof the relevant assessment years,\nunless any income chargeable to tax\nhas

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

153 referred to as\nthe relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment\nunder sub-section (3) of section 143 or\nthis section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action\nshall be taken under this section after\nthe expiry of four years from the end\nof the relevant assessment years,\nunless any income chargeable to tax\nhas

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)

reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act in according permission to re-verify and re-examine the matters in reference being the question of the proportion of deduction (viz. 25% versus 100%) u/s 80IC of the Act and the consequent assessability and chargeability to tax of any additional incomes in the hands of the assessee. This is because prior

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

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

153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied\nthat,—\n(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or\nrequisitioned, belongs to; or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to,\nor any information contained therein, relates to,\na person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then

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

153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied\nthat,—\n(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or\nrequisitioned, belongs to; or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to,\nor any information contained therein, relates to,\na person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then