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

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and\n153 of the Income Tax Act. The purpose of the said non-obstante clause is that in case\nof a conflict between the provisions of section 153C and the other sections as mentioned\nabove, the special provisions of section 153C will prevail over the other general\nprovisions of the Act. Even otherwise

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

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and\n153 of the Income Tax Act. The purpose of the said non-obstante clause is that in case\nof a conflict between the provisions of section 153C and the other sections as mentioned\nabove, the special provisions of section 153C will prevail over the other general\nprovisions of the Act. Even otherwise

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153\nof the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income\nas defined in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, then no purpose would be served in\nreopening the assessment already completed. Also, if there is no detection of any\nundisclosed income, then there would be no need

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153\nof the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income\nas defined in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, then no purpose would be served in\nreopening the assessment already completed. Also, if there is no detection of any\nundisclosed income, then there would be no need

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153\nof the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income\nas defined in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, then no purpose would be served in\nreopening the assessment already completed. Also, if there is no detection of any\nundisclosed income, then there would be no need

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153\nof the Act. If a search operation does not lead to detection of undisclosed income\nas defined in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, then no purpose would be served in\nreopening the assessment already completed. Also, if there is no detection of any\nundisclosed income, then there would be no need

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)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 6.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

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)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. BIPAN 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)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

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)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

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)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

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

transferred to the persons under control of Shirish Shah by Omprakash Khandelwal so as to provide LTCG in the shares of the company through synchronized trading. o The Directors of the company are dummy directors and the effective control and management of the company was with SCS. 6.9 The A.O. observed that SCS had accepted these facts during the course

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

transferred to the persons under control of Shirish Shah by Omprakash Khandelwal so as to provide LTCG in the shares of the company through synchronized trading. o The Directors of the company are dummy directors and the effective control and management of the company was with SCS. 6.9 The A.O. observed that SCS had accepted these facts during the course

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

transferred to the persons under control of Shirish Shah by Omprakash Khandelwal so as to provide LTCG in the shares of the company through synchronized trading. o The Directors of the company are dummy directors and the effective control and management of the company was with SCS. 6.9 The A.O. observed that SCS had accepted these facts during the course

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

transferred to the persons under control of Shirish Shah by Omprakash Khandelwal so as to provide LTCG in the shares of the company through synchronized trading. o The Directors of the company are dummy directors and the effective control and management of the company was with SCS. 6.9 The A.O. observed that SCS had accepted these facts during the course

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

transferred to the persons under control of Shirish Shah by Omprakash Khandelwal so as to provide LTCG in the shares of the company through synchronized trading. o The Directors of the company are dummy directors and the effective control and management of the company was with SCS. 6.9 The A.O. observed that SCS had accepted these facts during the course

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

transferred to the persons under control of Shirish Shah by Omprakash Khandelwal so as to provide LTCG in the shares of the company through synchronized trading. o The Directors of the company are dummy directors and the effective control and management of the company was with SCS. 6.9 The A.O. observed that SCS had accepted these facts during the course

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

139, 180 sq.m., having Ground, First report and Second floor. The G.Fl is having one drawing / diningroom, three bed rooms, one kitchen, attached toilets, one store and one stairs. On 1st floor and second floor, it is same as on ground floor. Amount Date of sale Rs. 5,01,00,000/- F.Y 2017-18 Sale instance taken by Valuer