THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Transfer Pricing Officer could not have taken cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the arm's length price u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no reference was made for the aforesaid transaction 9 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Transfer Pricing Officer could not have taken cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the arm's length price u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no reference was made for the aforesaid transaction 9 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Transfer Pricing Officer could not have taken cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the arm's length price u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no reference was made for the aforesaid transaction 9 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Transfer Pricing Officer could not have taken cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the arm's length price u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no reference was made for the aforesaid transaction 9 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Transfer Pricing Officer could not have taken cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the arm's length price u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no reference was made for the aforesaid transaction 9 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Transfer Pricing Officer could not have taken cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the arm's length price u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because no reference was made for the aforesaid transaction 9 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), JAMMU vs. ANITA KAPAHI, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

price, ITO's estimate of excess receipt by assessee on sale of onions could not be affirmed Held, yes Whether, therefore, impugned addition made in assessee's income was to be set aside-Held, yes" (i) Addition u/s 69 The AO has made addition in the hands of assessee u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It shall

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

price. The correct value\nof excess stock as per cost as submitted before the AO is worked out and the assessee\nhas put an alternate argument to demonstrate that the revenue is not prejudiced:\n“Additional argument on the aspect of prejudicial to the interest of revenue:\nThat the appellant vide reply dated 17.03.2021 specifically requested the AO to consider

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

price. Thus, the Panel is of the view that the assessee has wrongly claimed the Income from Sale of RECs/ESCs u/s 115BBG of Income Tax Act, I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 22 Assessment Year: 2018-19 1961. Income from sale of REC/ESCs is normal business income few the assessee and needs to be included in the business income and taxed at normal tale

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, 3(1), Mumbai reported in [2010] 37 SOT 322 (MUM.), it has been held by the Mumbai ITAT that income from sale of steam was income derived from industrial undertaking, it was eligible for deduction under section 80-IA. The relevant head notes are reproduced as under: - Section 80-IA of the Income

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

addition to this it also charges rent, leased rent and other maintenance charges. While fixing the premium of plots, flats, Shops etc. the element of profit is always included as JDA is not carrying out any charity by allotting them at a loss or at the cost price. Majority of lands under the occupation of JDA have been transferred

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

addition to this it also charges rent, leased rent and other maintenance charges. While fixing the premium of plots, flats, Shops etc. the element of profit is always included as JDA is not carrying out any charity by allotting them at a loss or at the cost price. Majority of lands under the occupation of JDA have been transferred

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh in the case of I.T.O. v. Shri Manjit Singh reported in (2010)128 TTJ (Chd)(UO) 82, held:- "In the absence of any evidence to show that the assessee had received any consideration over and above what is stated in the sale deed, addition could not be made by disregarding the 'full

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh in the case of I.T.O. v. Shri Manjit Singh reported in (2010)128 TTJ (Chd)(UO) 82, held:- "In the absence of any evidence to show that the assessee had received any consideration over and above what is stated in the sale deed, addition could not be made by disregarding the 'full

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh in the case of I.T.O. v. Shri Manjit Singh reported in (2010)128 TTJ (Chd)(UO) 82, held:- "In the absence of any evidence to show that the assessee had received any consideration over and above what is stated in the sale deed, addition could not be made by disregarding the 'full

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

price whichever is lower at the acquisition in the past. 4. That Ld. AO has not appreciated the fact that surrender was agreed in the hands of four persons to avoid litigation, buy peace and to make amicable settlement with the department. 5. That the Ld. AO erred under law and facts in making addition

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

prices mentioned in the registered sale deeds. The case law relied by the Ld AR are distinguishable on the peculiar facts of the present case. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 100,00,000/- and Rs 53,98,000/- to the income of the Assessee u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained Investment

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Income TaxRule 1963 and respectfully following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 4. The ld. Sr. DR argued on behalf of the revenue and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that there is no barred