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 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 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

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, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

business i.e., in open market - held, yes- Whether thus, price at which surplus power supplied by assessee to State Electricity Board was determined entirely by State Electricity Board in terms of statutory regulations and contract, such a price could not be equated with market value as was understood for purpose of section 80-IA (8) and on contrary, rate

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

SHRI NITIN AIMA,SHRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

price and duty drawback. In view of the\ndecision of Supreme Court in the case of Keshavji Ravji & Co vs. CIT\nreported at 183 ITR 1 the duty drawback should be reduced from the\nvalue of purchases as a result of which the profits earned from exports\nwill only be in respect of value of sales credited to the Manufacturing

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

Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 80-IA (8) Where any goods [or services] held for the purposes of the eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by the assessee, or where any goods 96[or services] held for the purposes of any other business carried on by the assessee are transferred to the eligible business

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.

income. We must be allowed depreciation of assets/adjustment of capital assets and W. I progress of authority.” The above answer of the assessee is not acceptable. The main business of the assessee is to develop the new residential colonies, markets, Malls, flats and their ancillary supports. While carrying out all those activities, JDA charges premium on all of them

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.

income. We must be allowed depreciation of assets/adjustment of capital assets and W. I progress of authority.” The above answer of the assessee is not acceptable. The main business of the assessee is to develop the new residential colonies, markets, Malls, flats and their ancillary supports. While carrying out all those activities, JDA charges premium on all of them

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S KAISER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 381/Asr./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Kaiser Industries Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-1, Jammu Industrial Growth Centre, Sidco, Samba (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabck0456G Assessee By : Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Yashender Garg, Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu Dated 31.03.2016. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ib(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Samba Unit As The Same Was Claimed To Inflate The Profit Of Eligible Unit For The Motive Of Availing Deduction U/S 80Ib.

price of this material being transferred to Samba unit. It is categorically stated that Samba unit has not sold its finished products to any of its related parties at all. It is pertinent to state that common expenses viz. Directors remuneration and legal expenses have already been apportioned between Bahadurgarh unit and Samba unit as is apparent from the details

M/S RAGA MOTOR PVT LTD,JALANDHAR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 11/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 [Pan: Aabcr 7790L]

prices known to her were of the models sold in 2010. Buying a vehicle, a capital asset, with long term implications, is ordinarily a result of an informed decision. A customer intending to purchase a vehicle would visit an auto dealer directly, and on the basis of discussions, including demonstration, as well as other relevant factors, viz. past experience, reputation

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