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. 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

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

153B. Undisclosed income includes money, bullion or other valuable\nassets. It is only when the concerned officer has information about the same and\nhas reason to believe that the said valuable assets has not been or would not be\ndisclosed would give jurisdiction to the officer authorized to conduct a search\noperation. Therefore, the object and purpose of a search

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

153B. Undisclosed income includes money, bullion or other valuable\nassets. It is only when the concerned officer has information about the same and\nhas reason to believe that the said valuable assets has not been or would not be\ndisclosed would give jurisdiction to the officer authorized to conduct a search\noperation. Therefore, the object and purpose of a search

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

153B. Undisclosed income includes money, bullion or other valuable\nassets. It is only when the concerned officer has information about the same and\nhas reason to believe that the said valuable assets has not been or would not be\ndisclosed would give jurisdiction to the officer authorized to conduct a search\noperation. Therefore, the object and purpose of a search

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

153B. Undisclosed income includes money, bullion or other valuable\nassets. It is only when the concerned officer has information about the same and\nhas reason to believe that the said valuable assets has not been or would not be\ndisclosed would give jurisdiction to the officer authorized to conduct a search\noperation. Therefore, the object and purpose of a search

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

transfer the allotment in the name of new buyers and that is why, the assessee firm received booking slips in original and re-issued fresh booking slips in the name of new allottees. It is evident that no fresh booking slips were issued to new allottees. It is clear from the booking slips reproduced on page

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

transfer the allotment in the name of new buyers and that is why, the assessee firm received booking slips in original and re-issued fresh booking slips in the name of new allottees. It is evident that no fresh booking slips were issued to new allottees. It is clear from the booking slips reproduced on page