SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,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

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,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

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

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

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

4) of the Act by the assessee and its retraction, the A.O. observed that during the course of search and seizure operation the assessee was confronted with various documentary evidences and statements of various entry operators like SCS, Omprakash Anandilal Khandelwal (director of PIL), R K Kedia etc. and when the assessee found himself cornered by the department, he admitted

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

4) of the Act by the assessee and its retraction, the A.O. observed that during the course of search and seizure operation the assessee was confronted with various documentary evidences and statements of various entry operators like SCS, Omprakash Anandilal Khandelwal (director of PIL), R K Kedia etc. and when the assessee found himself cornered by the department, he admitted

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

4) of the Act by the assessee and its retraction, the A.O. observed that during the course of search and seizure operation the assessee was confronted with various documentary evidences and statements of various entry operators like SCS, Omprakash Anandilal Khandelwal (director of PIL), R K Kedia etc. and when the assessee found himself cornered by the department, he admitted

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

4) of the Act by the assessee and its retraction, the A.O. observed that during the course of search and seizure operation the assessee was confronted with various documentary evidences and statements of various entry operators like SCS, Omprakash Anandilal Khandelwal (director of PIL), R K Kedia etc. and when the assessee found himself cornered by the department, he admitted

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

4) of the Act by the assessee and its retraction, the A.O. observed that during the course of search and seizure operation the assessee was confronted with various documentary evidences and statements of various entry operators like SCS, Omprakash Anandilal Khandelwal (director of PIL), R K Kedia etc. and when the assessee found himself cornered by the department, he admitted

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

4) of the Act by the assessee and its retraction, the A.O. observed that during the course of search and seizure operation the assessee was confronted with various documentary evidences and statements of various entry operators like SCS, Omprakash Anandilal Khandelwal (director of PIL), R K Kedia etc. and when the assessee found himself cornered by the department, he admitted

M/S KAUR SAIN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1374/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Kaur Sain Spinning & बनाम The Acit, Weaving Mills Ltd., Central Circle-Ii, A-17, Phase Iii, Ludhiana Focal Point, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aabck6909J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing Through Video Conferencing "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2021 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2021 आदेश/Order Per R.L. Negi:

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in resorting to provisions of Sec. 148. 2. That the Ld. Commisisoner of Income Tax (Appeals

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings u/s 147. 2. That the Learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, was not justified to arbitrarily uphold

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals