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 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

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

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

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

11. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record and case laws cited. Admittedly, The JCIT, Range-II, Bathinda vide his order dated 10.02.2014 dropped the penalty proceeding u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by passing an identical once sentence orders (APB pg. no. 22 & 23); as under: ‘Penalty proceedings initiated

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

11. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record and case laws cited. Admittedly, The JCIT, Range-II, Bathinda vide his order dated 10.02.2014 dropped the penalty proceeding u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by passing an identical once sentence orders (APB pg. no. 22 & 23); as under: ‘Penalty proceedings initiated

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

11 I.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 23. This method involves comparing the price charged in a controlled transaction (i.e., a transaction between related parties) with the price charged in a comparable uncontrolled transaction (i.e., a transaction between independent un-related parties) for identical or similar goods, services, or assets. 24. To summaries the arguments the Ld AR submitted

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

11 of the 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

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

11 of the 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

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

11 of the 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

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

11 of the 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

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

11 of the 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

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

11 of the 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

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

11 of the 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

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

transferred. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Suryanaraina 88 ITR 321 held that the full value of consideration in the said section meant only the actual value received by the assessee. However the market value may also be taken in place of full value of consideration only in the event of the consideration

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

transferred. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Suryanaraina 88 ITR 321 held that the full value of consideration in the said section meant only the actual value received by the assessee. However the market value may also be taken in place of full value of consideration only in the event of the consideration