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

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

10 and 10B of the Act. It appears that the object of s. 80A(4) was to ensure that a unit which has availed of the benefit under s. 10B will not be allowed to further claim relief under s. 80-IA or 80-IB r/w s. 80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under

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

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

10 and 10B of the Act. It appears that the object of s. 80A(4) was to ensure that a unit which has availed of the benefit under s. 10B will not be allowed to further claim relief under s. 80-IA or 80-IB r/w s. 80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under

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

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

10 and 10B of the Act. It appears that the object of s. 80A(4) was to ensure that a unit which has availed of the benefit under s. 10B will not be allowed to further claim relief under s. 80-IA or 80-IB r/w s. 80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under

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

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

10 and 10B of the Act. It appears that the object of s. 80A(4) was to ensure that a unit which has availed of the benefit under s. 10B will not be allowed to further claim relief under s. 80-IA or 80-IB r/w s. 80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under

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

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

10 and 10B of the Act. It appears that the object of s. 80A(4) was to ensure that a unit which has availed of the benefit under s. 10B will not be allowed to further claim relief under s. 80-IA or 80-IB r/w s. 80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under

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

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

10 and 10B of the Act. It appears that the object of s. 80A(4) was to ensure that a unit which has availed of the benefit under s. 10B will not be allowed to further claim relief under s. 80-IA or 80-IB r/w s. 80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under

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

10 I.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 20. The AR further stated that before application of CUP method, it is important to understand the conditions when the CUP method can be applied and as per his understanding and wisdom the CUP Method can be applied where associated enterprises (AEs) buy or sell similar goods or services in comparable transactions

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

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

section 68. 20. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order. He contended that the AO observed that the amounts which the assessee paid over and above the prices mentioned in the registries of purchase of land by the assessee company during FY 2008-09 were amounting to a sum of Rs 216,23,000/-, being the cash deposited

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

Section 139 (5) of the Act was filed before the Assessing Officer. We answer both the question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and in favour of assessee”. Ground No. 3 9. Ground No. 3, not pressed. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 32 Assessment Year: 2018-19 10. The ld. AR argued that the assessee paidcommission during financial year

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

35,000/marla ) , Total marla– 428 (21 kanals& 8 marlas ) , total amount – 428 x 2,25,000 > Rs.9,63,00,000. Cheque amount Rs.7,57,56,000 (As per circle rate). 4 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that she has purchased a plot of land with plot size

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

transferred by the assessee to the M/s Devinder Kumar Deepesh Kumar ,as an accommodation entry for recording of bogus purchase, because 4 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 as per the AO the physical movement of goods could not be proved, in absence of any Bilty, weighment slip of goods, octroi receipts, and in absence of any proof