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

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\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

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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , 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

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

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

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