THE ASSISTANT 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 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

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

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

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

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

13)/144B of the income tax Act 61 (hereinafter the Act 61) dated 25/10/2024, in respect of which reference was made to TPO for determination of ALP u/s 92CA (after 2 I.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 necessary approval from PCIT), and assessment completed , considering transfer pricing adjustments ,vide order u/s 92CA(3) dated 30/10/2023. 2. Brief facts emerging

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.

section 145(3) may not be made.” In response to this query the assessee has filed reply on 24.12.2007 which is reproduced as under: “As the authority is not indulging purchase and sale of land, the details cannot be furnished and ITA Nos. 494 & 498/Asr./2013 12 Jammu Development Authority no land is in the name of Jammu Development Authority

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.

section 145(3) may not be made.” In response to this query the assessee has filed reply on 24.12.2007 which is reproduced as under: “As the authority is not indulging purchase and sale of land, the details cannot be furnished and ITA Nos. 494 & 498/Asr./2013 12 Jammu Development Authority no land is in the name of Jammu Development Authority

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

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

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

section 263 cannot be taken into consideration and the Assessing Officer having taken a plausible view, the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. Again, the Ld. Counsel, relied upon the judgment of Jurisdictional Bench of ITAT Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the case of Sh. Jaswinder

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

13 A.Y.2015-16 16. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that all the facts being duly disclosed to the AO and the AO having taken a possible view on the issue, there was no error in the order of the AO merely because the Ld. Pr.CIT entertained another view on the issue. He referred to the decision of the apex court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED , TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

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

13: “1. That the Id. CIT(A) has grossly misdirected himself in law and on facts, in upholding the validity of order passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3), by not appreciating the assessee's contentions that order is in gross violation of the principles of Natural Justice being passed without confronting the assessee or providing the copies of the statements

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED, TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

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

13: “1. That the Id. CIT(A) has grossly misdirected himself in law and on facts, in upholding the validity of order passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3), by not appreciating the assessee's contentions that order is in gross violation of the principles of Natural Justice being passed without confronting the assessee or providing the copies of the statements

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