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

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

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

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

exemption u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act 61 in respect of the power and steam generated by UNIT -1, (functioning with a capacity of 12.5 Mega Watt), and the electricity and steam so generated being transferred to the paper manufacturing unit (non-specified unit) has adopted TNMM (transactional net margin method), as a comparison for working out net profit

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

exempted income. The ld. DR argued that the revenue had properly taken it as an income from business. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. AO para no. 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 of the said order are extracted as below: “3.5.2 The Panel has considered the submission. It is noticed that the AO has dealt with the assessee

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

transfer of long term securities (Share dealings) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee had sold shares of SNCFL and earned long-term capital gains - Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice alleging that transaction was a pennystock deal aimed at illegitimately claiming long-term capital gain exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer treated purchase as bogus and added

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

transfer of long term securities (Share dealings) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee had sold shares of SNCFL and earned long-term capital gains - Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice alleging that transaction was a pennystock deal aimed at illegitimately claiming long-term capital gain exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer treated purchase as bogus and added

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

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

exempt from assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 as per the provisions of section 54E. It was submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had observed that as per section 45(1), any profit or gain arising from 12 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO transfer of capital assets affected

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

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