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 (in short ‘the TPO’) on 21.12.2010 for computation of the Arm’s 12 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Length Price. The TPO accordingly passed order dated 21.10.2011 and sent it to the Assessing Officer for necessary action at his end. The order/report of the TPO was received

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 (in short ‘the TPO’) on 21.12.2010 for computation of the Arm’s 12 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Length Price. The TPO accordingly passed order dated 21.10.2011 and sent it to the Assessing Officer for necessary action at his end. The order/report of the TPO was received

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 (in short ‘the TPO’) on 21.12.2010 for computation of the Arm’s 12 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Length Price. The TPO accordingly passed order dated 21.10.2011 and sent it to the Assessing Officer for necessary action at his end. The order/report of the TPO was received

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 (in short ‘the TPO’) on 21.12.2010 for computation of the Arm’s 12 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Length Price. The TPO accordingly passed order dated 21.10.2011 and sent it to the Assessing Officer for necessary action at his end. The order/report of the TPO was received

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 (in short ‘the TPO’) on 21.12.2010 for computation of the Arm’s 12 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Length Price. The TPO accordingly passed order dated 21.10.2011 and sent it to the Assessing Officer for necessary action at his end. The order/report of the TPO was received

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short ‘the TPO’) on 21.12.2010 for computation of the Arm’s 12 I.T.A. Nos. 477 & CO 32/Asr/2015 & Ors Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors Length Price. The TPO accordingly passed order dated 21.10.2011 and sent it to the Assessing Officer for necessary action at his end. The order/report of the TPO was received

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

price of Rs.2,30,00,000/-, has wrongly been assessed and upheld in this case. I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 3 Assessment Year: 2006-07 6. That the Id.CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring assessee's submissions that if at all the reopening was valid, the Id ITO could not have given a clean chit to other group of partners headed

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

transfer pricing issues in the case of any person having international transactions or in case of a foreign company. It has been provided under sub-section (8) of section 144C that DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order of the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 36 Assessment Year: 2018-19 In a recent judgement

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

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AD erred in making addition of Rs. 8,85,40,036/- vide order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) in consequence of directions of DRP u/s144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in making an addition

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

1 & 2 of A-2 DNR which records various payment made to Sh. Surjit Singh and all of these payments have been found recorded in the books of account of the appellant and verified accordingly during remand proceedings by the Assessing Officer. 13. The Assessing Officer has further relied upon documents A-9 DNB-1 which reproduced various ikrarnamas, photo

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

1 & 2 of A-2 DNR which records various payment made to Sh. Surjit Singh and all of these payments have been found recorded in the books of account of the appellant and verified accordingly during remand proceedings by the Assessing Officer. 13. The Assessing Officer has further relied upon documents A-9 DNB-1 which reproduced various ikrarnamas, photo

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

1 & 2 of A-2 DNR which records various payment made to Sh. Surjit Singh and all of these payments have been found recorded in the books of account of the appellant and verified accordingly during remand proceedings by the Assessing Officer. 13. The Assessing Officer has further relied upon documents A-9 DNB-1 which reproduced various ikrarnamas, photo

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

13,86,384/- as per the working given below: -\nValue of Excess Stock\nTax as per section 115BBE [1777416*60%*1.25*1.04]\nTax paid by the appellant on income of Rs. 50L surrendered in return of income [50L*30%*1.04]\nTax Payable\n17,77,416/-\n13,86,384/-\n15,60,000/-\nNIL\n22.\nThat before invoking the provisions of section

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

13.\nThe authorities below have only confined themselves to the expression “derived\nfrom\" and \"attributable to\" without considering the context in which these\nexpressions have been used. There is no doubt that the Supreme Court has held\nthat the expression \"derived from\" is much narrower than attributable to\". In\nsection 80-IB, the expression \"derived from industrial undertaking\" has been

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

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

13. It can, thus, be seen that the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax had not only put his remarks on the proforma presented before him by the Assessing Officer but also separately conveyed his satisfaction to the Assessing Officer in a separate letter. The application of mind and grant of sanction was, thus, one integrated exercise. Even independently, we have

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

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

1) and therefore, the appellant was issued summons us 131 for personal appearance on 14.11.2019 along with bank account and detailed capital account explaining the increase in large share capital during the year. In response Sh. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate filed online reply along with capital account, copy of registered deed in respect of immovable property and documentary evidence relating

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

price whichever is lower at the acquisition in the past. 4. That Ld. AO has not appreciated the fact that surrender was agreed in the hands of four persons to avoid litigation, buy peace and to make amicable settlement with the department. 5. That the Ld. AO erred under law and facts in making addition