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

149, section 151 and section 153, 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 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such

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

149, section 151 and section 153, 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 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such

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

149, section 151 and section 153, 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 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such

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

149, section 151 and section 153, 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 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such

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

149, section 151 and section 153, 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 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such

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

149, section 151 and section 153, 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 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AMARJIT SINGH , BATHINDA

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

68 read with Section 115BBE amounting to the tune of Rs.9,65,71,414/-. In other words, both the grounds are in support of the CIT(A)’s finding. If we peruse sub-clause (4) of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, it provides that the AO or the assessee, as & C.O. 07/CHD/2024 A.Y.2019-20 3 the case

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)

68 of the Act. As against the returned income of Rs. 8,85,15,010/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 37,11,61,260/- by bringing to tax the whole of the share premium amounting to Rs. 28,26,46,250/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA vs. OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA vs. OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 by way of proviso was made by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/04/2013. Hence the same is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, it was further held by the ld CIT(A) that the rotation of funds within the group companies can be on account of financial requirements and accommodation due to business

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

Section 132 of the Act in Scott Edil Group of cases\non 15.11.2017. Since the facts involved in all these captioned appeals\nare identical and there are common issues, hence the same were heard\ntogether and the same are being disposed of by this common order.\n2. The grounds/issues raised in all the appeals are summarized as\nunder :\nITA

AMICO TEXTILES,SOLAN vs. DCIT CC-1, CHANDIGARTH

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.430/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Amico Textiles Dcit Village Bir Plassi, Ropar Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Nalagarh, Solan Chandigarh Himachal Pradesh 176077 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqfa-9823-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Neeraj Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025. आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 31-03-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 R.W.S. 153A Of The Act On 17-12- 2018. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.46.87 Lacs.

68 and framed the assessment. 4. During appellate proceedings, the assessee raised a legal plea that the assessment ought to have been framed u/s 153C as seized document was found from the possession of one of the partners which was used against the assessee to make the impugned addition. However, Ld. CIT(A) noted that the seized material belonged

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)

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

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)

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

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)

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted

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)

68 arbitrarily. These are actual long term capital gains earned by the assessee. h) All the documents in the shape of share certificates issued by Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. which are part of annexure A containing 1 to 182 pages have been doubted under the words Character of Certificates, inspite of the fact that the AO has not doubted