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 Vs. Best Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.”, 397 ITR 182 (Delhi.), by observing in para 38 of the said order that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

5. FINDINGS OF THE AO: On the basis of Information received 'and information available I have reason to believe that an income of Rs. 2,29,15,034/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Ac. The assessment record, 360 degree report along with the financial of the company are the basis

SATISH KATOCH,PALAMPUR vs. ITO, PALAMPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The A.O. U/S 154 Of The Act Against

5 A.Y.2007-08 u/s 147 of the Act, which is the fact in the present case. It was contended that as per the said sub section, in case of re-assessment made under section 147 of the Act, interest under section 234B was imposable only if the amount on which interest was payable under section 234B(1), was increased. In other

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)

section 147 o f the Act. The Assessing Officer ordering reassessment cannot sit as a court o f appeal over the Assessing Officer making the original assessment and it is not open to the Assessing Officer ordering reassessment to substitute his own opinion for that o f the Assessing Officer, who made the original assessment." (emphasis supplied) In final analysis

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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