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

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

16. The Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR have been rendered as per provisions Section 80IB wherein the deduction is provided on profits and gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits

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

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

16. The Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR have been rendered as per provisions Section 80IB wherein the deduction is provided on profits and gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits

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

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

16. The Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR have been rendered as per provisions Section 80IB wherein the deduction is provided on profits and gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits

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

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

16. The Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR have been rendered as per provisions Section 80IB wherein the deduction is provided on profits and gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits

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

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

16. The Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR have been rendered as per provisions Section 80IB wherein the deduction is provided on profits and gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits

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

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

16. The Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR have been rendered as per provisions Section 80IB wherein the deduction is provided on profits and gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits

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

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

16. The Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Liberty India (supra) and Saraf Exports (supra) relied by the Ld. DR have been rendered as per provisions Section 80IB wherein the deduction is provided on profits and gains derived from eligible industrial undertaking from any business. Whereas, under section 10B the deduction has been provided on profits

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the 92[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or 92[Principal Director General or] Director General or 92[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; 15. Accordingly

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the 92[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or 92[Principal Director General or] Director General or 92[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; 15. Accordingly

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

16 I.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 consumers, which reflects the fair value for the purpose of section 80-IA deduction. The relevant section 80-IA(8) is reproduced below for your honour’s convenience. 36. The appellant has submitted the following documents before the DRP and AO:- a. Computation of profits under section 80-IA with details

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

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

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

16 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 17 Assessment Year: 2018-19 5.2 Mr Sehgal, ld. AR further explained the details about the sale of renewable energy certificate (REC and ESCarts), the relevant part is extracted as below: “2. Receipts on sale of Renewable Energy Certificates[REC] & ESCERTS [Addition made as per directions of the DRP]: Before we specifically, deal

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.

price. Majority of lands under the occupation of JDA have been transferred by the State Govt., without charging any premium. Thus the contention of the assessee that - “It is an agency of Govt., created for development and not for purchase & sale of property. It is further brought to your kind notice that the authority s created have been capitalized

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.

price. Majority of lands under the occupation of JDA have been transferred by the State Govt., without charging any premium. Thus the contention of the assessee that - “It is an agency of Govt., created for development and not for purchase & sale of property. It is further brought to your kind notice that the authority s created have been capitalized

SHRI SUBASH CHANDER GUPTA & SONS,JAMMU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX , SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee anopportunity of being heardand after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify • From the language

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

16 A.Y.2015-16 assessee and depreciation claimed against the same, rests on the understanding that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates Vs. ACIT (supra) applied to the facts of the present case and the rental income accordingly was assessable under the head “Income from House Property” against which no claim

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

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

16 to 18] [In favour of assessee] C) [2022] 141 taxmann.com 512 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARATPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shukla Dairy (P.) Ltd.* II. Section 40A(3), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 6DD of Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit (Rule 6DD) - Assessment year