M/S JOSAN INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DCIT, CL-1, INTL. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transferring the jurisdiction of the case, which direction has been complied with by producing the section 127 order dated 5.3.2002. 9. The ld. DR has placed reliance on the order of the DRP in this regard, contending that as correctly taken note of by the ld. DRP, the Assessee had itself mentioned its status as “Non-Resident” in its return

M/S JOSAN INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DCIT, CL-1, INTL. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transferring the jurisdiction of the case, which direction has been complied with by producing the section 127 order dated 5.3.2002. 9. The ld. DR has placed reliance on the order of the DRP in this regard, contending that as correctly taken note of by the ld. DRP, the Assessee had itself mentioned its status as “Non-Resident” in its return

M/S MAA BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents

M/S OMKAR ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents

M/S SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents

M/S OM CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents

M/S ANAND ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SANGURUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked

M/S CHENAB CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked

M/S AMBEY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked

M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked

M/S HIND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS CONTRCTORS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked

M/S AMAR CONTRUCTION AND ENGINEER ,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked

M/S GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS,SANGURUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked

M/S HIMALYAN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

reopened the case of the assessee in terms of section 147 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed its return of income in terms of Section 44AD of the Act and also claimed deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked

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

reopened and the Assessing Officer of\nsuch other person is required to make assessment in accordance with the provisions of\nsection 153C of the Act. It is not open to the Assessing Officer of such other person to\nuse that material in a subsequent assessment carried out u/s 153A of the Act in case of\nsuch other person unless

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

reopened and the Assessing Officer of\nsuch other person is required to make assessment in accordance with the provisions of\nsection 153C of the Act. It is not open to the Assessing Officer of such other person to\nuse that material in a subsequent assessment carried out u/s 153A of the Act in case of\nsuch other person unless

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

assessments, no addition\ncan be made by the AO in an assessment carried out u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act in\nthe absence of any incriminating material found during the search action. He has further\nrelied upon various case laws to contend that the report of the DVO cannot be construed\nas an incriminating material found during the course

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

reopened and the Assessing Officer of\nsuch other person is required to make assessment in accordance with the provisions of\nsection 153C of the Act. It is not open to the Assessing Officer of such other person to\nuse that material in a subsequent assessment carried out u/s 153A of the Act in case of\nsuch other person unless