MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

c) Slump sale may be of a single undertaking or even more than one undertaking. (d) The undertaking has to be transferred as a result of sale. (e) The consideration for transfer is a lump sum consideration. This consideration should be arrived at without assigning values to individual assets and liabilities. 35 A.Y.2015-16 The consideration may be discharged in cash

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

13. We have gone through the case law cited by the Ld. AR, and observed that all are distinguishable on peculiar facts of the instant case as in none of those cases, there was any transaction of payment and receipt of cash loan, involved in violation of section 269 SS and 269T of the Act. As regards to interpretation

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

13. We have gone through the case law cited by the Ld. AR, and observed that all are distinguishable on peculiar facts of the instant case as in none of those cases, there was any transaction of payment and receipt of cash loan, involved in violation of section 269 SS and 269T of the Act. As regards to interpretation

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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

2, 3 & 4 together and submitted that the AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 6,66,54,028/-by reducing the sales value of steam and power to Rs. 56,08,22,355, contrary to the audited results declared at Rs. 62,74,76,383 by wrongly reducing the distribution and transmission loss from the unit price

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

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

13,86,384/- 15,60,000/- NIL 22. That before invoking the provisions of section 263, it is very much necessary to adhere to the twin conditions as embedded in section 263. In the circumstances where only one of the conditions is satisfied and the condition is not dealt with, in such circumstances the proceedings initiated vide section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

13,81,801 pertained to GDA schemes. The AO however, considered only the income side and ignored the expenditure totally. 3A.2.3.5.As submitted earlier, the appellant had duly engaged experts for segregating the nazul and non- nazul accounts and the revised accounts for the year under appeal are submitted herewith as per Annexure ‘I’ comprising of the following accounts – a. General

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

13,81,801 pertained to GDA schemes. The AO however, considered only the income side and ignored the expenditure totally. 3A.2.3.5.As submitted earlier, the appellant had duly engaged experts for segregating the nazul and non- nazul accounts and the revised accounts for the year under appeal are submitted herewith as per Annexure ‘I’ comprising of the following accounts – a. General

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

SH. GURBACHAN SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, MOGA

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

price mentioned on the said document. In this AR had submitted that, appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, 3.7. denied the charge of the Learned Assessing Officer that the said property was actually sold for Rs. 11.25 crores on the following grounds: i) The assessee does not know the source of the purported alleged documents in the possession

SH. SANTOKH SINGH BRAR,MOGA vs. ITO, WARD - 2,, MOGA

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

price mentioned on the said document. In this AR had submitted that, appellant, during the course of assessment proceedings, 3.7. denied the charge of the Learned Assessing Officer that the said property was actually sold for Rs. 11.25 crores on the following grounds: i) The assessee does not know the source of the purported alleged documents in the possession

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

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

c) The income derived from agriculture land operations is only in namesake as no income disclosed from said land and investment in the land comes at Rs. 2,99,10,000/- during financial year 2008-09. (d) The intention of the purchaser of the land is not for agriculture purpose but the same was to earn profit from sale