ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement by exerting undue influence or coercion by the search party. Though the above decision in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal is with

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement by exerting undue influence or coercion by the search party. Though the above decision in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal is with

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement by exerting undue influence or coercion by the search party. Though the above decision in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal is with

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement by exerting undue influence or coercion by the search party. Though the above decision in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal is with

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement by exerting undue influence or coercion by the search party. Though the above decision in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal is with

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

search and seizure action had taken place, the data had not been finalized as adjustments towards depreciation, interest and provisions

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

search and seizure action had taken place, the data had not been finalized as adjustments towards depreciation, interest and provisions

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

search and seizure action had taken place, the data had not been finalized as adjustments towards depreciation, interest and provisions

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

search and seizure action had taken place, the data had not been finalized as adjustments towards depreciation, interest and provisions

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

seizure operation was conducted 2015:DHC:8430-DB ITA 705/2008, 924/2009 & W.P.(C) 3797/2011 Page 6 of 71 under Section 132 of the Act on the premises of the school run by the Assessee at Mehrauli. The warrant of authorization for the search was not issued in the name of the Assessee but in the name of “Col. Satsangi Kiran

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

seizure operations, or inducement propelled by remorse and atonement to make an admission and confess a wrong. Motive of the person making the admission to gain indulgence, advantage or avoid evil of a temporal nature, cannot be treated as equivalent to inducement, coercion or fraud. Whether a confession is voluntary or induced by force, threat, coercion and wrongful inducement would

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI LALIT MAHAJAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement by exerting undue influence or coercion by the search party. Though the above decision in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal is with

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. NITIN MAHAJAN,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement by exerting undue influence or coercion by the search party. Though the above decision in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal is with

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI JATIN MAHAJAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement by exerting undue influence or coercion by the search party. Though the above decision in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal is with

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANILA MAHAJAN,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement by exerting undue influence or coercion by the search party. Though the above decision in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal is with

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SHIVALI MAHAJAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement by exerting undue influence or coercion by the search party. Though the above decision in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal is with

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. RINKU MAHAJAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

seizure operations would not empower the AO to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation”. In paragraph 24, their Lordships have mentioned about the prevailing practice of extracting statement by exerting undue influence or coercion by the search party. Though the above decision in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal is with

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

search from the premises of the assessee. Accordingly, above contention of Ld. CIT(DR) are rejected. She also submitted that during the course of search, hard disks of computers and others material were also seized which contained incriminating material. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to substantiate the claim either by the impugned assessment order or through any other documentary evidence