SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

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

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

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

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\n\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas

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

Section 69B of the Act. In absence of any other material on\nrecord, addition was correctly deleted. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”\n11. A perusal of the above judgments would indicate that mere valuation report is not\nsufficient to conclude that the assessee has made unexplained investment. From perusal\nof the assessment, nowhere it reveals that inspite of search, Revenue

DCIT, CC 1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

2) are without prejudice to the generality of provisions of section 56(1) of IT Act, but none the less these provisions specifically mentions about the chargeability of income under the head income from other sources so as to remove any ambiguity. Section 45 of IT Act refer to capital gains as profit or gains arising from transfer