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

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

section 92CA(2B) that assuming but not admitting that excess period of credit allowed by the assessee company on sales made to the subsidiary company is to be treated as an independent international transaction, Ld. 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

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

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

section 92CA(2B) that assuming but not admitting that excess period of credit allowed by the assessee company on sales made to the subsidiary company is to be treated as an independent international transaction, Ld. 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

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

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

section 92CA(2B) that assuming but not admitting that excess period of credit allowed by the assessee company on sales made to the subsidiary company is to be treated as an independent international transaction, Ld. 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

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

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

section 92CA(2B) that assuming but not admitting that excess period of credit allowed by the assessee company on sales made to the subsidiary company is to be treated as an independent international transaction, Ld. 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

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

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

section 92CA(2B) that assuming but not admitting that excess period of credit allowed by the assessee company on sales made to the subsidiary company is to be treated as an independent international transaction, Ld. 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

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

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

section 92CA(2B) that assuming but not admitting that excess period of credit allowed by the assessee company on sales made to the subsidiary company is to be treated as an independent international transaction, Ld. 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

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

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

10. The Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently argued that the Ld. PCIT was Justified u/s 263 of the Act, in holding that the penalty orders passed under section 271D and 271E, dated 10.02.2014, by the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Bathinda dated 29.03.2016, by way of one line penalty dropping are erroneous and prejudicious to the interest of revenue

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

10. The Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently argued that the Ld. PCIT was Justified u/s 263 of the Act, in holding that the penalty orders passed under section 271D and 271E, dated 10.02.2014, by the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Bathinda dated 29.03.2016, by way of one line penalty dropping are erroneous and prejudicious to the interest of revenue

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

transferred power. 4. That the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has erred in shifting the method from the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to the Cost Plus Method in the case of steam, and to the External Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method in the case of electricity, without considering the fact that the TNMM method adopted by the appellant

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.

section 80-1A (10) of the I. Tax Act, 1961 empowers him to do so. Because, if at all there is some extraordinary profit due to some transactions then the profit as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived from eligible business was required to be determined whereas the Ld. A.O. has denied whole deduction

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

section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA. But the issue of the assessee is related to domestic tax which is not related to transfer pricing. The entire issue is raised before the bench first time without agitating before the lower authority. The submission of the ld. Sr Dr is in view that the assessment orders

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

section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA. But the issue of the assessee is related to domestic tax which is not related to transfer pricing. The entire issue is raised before the bench first time without agitating before the lower authority. The submission of the ld. Sr Dr is in view that the assessment orders

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

section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA. But the issue of the assessee is related to domestic tax which is not related to transfer pricing. The entire issue is raised before the bench first time without agitating before the lower authority. The submission of the ld. Sr Dr is in view that the assessment orders

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

section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA. But the issue of the assessee is related to domestic tax which is not related to transfer pricing. The entire issue is raised before the bench first time without agitating before the lower authority. The submission of the ld. Sr Dr is in view that the assessment orders

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

section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA. But the issue of the assessee is related to domestic tax which is not related to transfer pricing. The entire issue is raised before the bench first time without agitating before the lower authority. The submission of the ld. Sr Dr is in view that the assessment orders

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

section 153(4) is related to the transfer pricing u/s 92CA. But the issue of the assessee is related to domestic tax which is not related to transfer pricing. The entire issue is raised before the bench first time without agitating before the lower authority. The submission of the ld. Sr Dr is in view that the assessment orders