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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section

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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section

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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section

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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section

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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section

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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section

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

pricing adjustments ,vide order u/s 92CA(3) dated 30/10/2023. 2. Brief facts emerging from records , are that the assessee company is engaged in manufacturing of paper and paper based products at its unit at Muktsar, Punjab, utilizing wood chips, veneer waste, wheat straw and other materials as inputs ( wood and agro based manufacturer ) and for the purpose of its manufacturing

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

transfer of long term securities (Penny stock shares) - Assessment year 2014-\n15 - Whether before exercise of power under section 263 it is Principal Commissioner\nwho has to apply its mind to issue and thereafter record reasons as to how twin conditions\nof order of Assessing Officer being erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue are\nsatisfied and then issue

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

2. That while taking the above view, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in totally ignoring the binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Nath vs CIT (1979) 120 ITR 14 (SC), heavily relied upon by assessee, holding that 'when it is left to the option or discretion of the ITO, whether or not to take an action

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

price bargained for by the parties to the sale, etc. The consideration for the transfer of the capital asset is what the transferor receives Dy. CIT v. Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in lieu of the asset he parts with, viz., money or money's worth. The expression "full consideration" in the main part of section 12B(2

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

price bargained for by the parties to the sale, etc. The consideration for the transfer of the capital asset is what the transferor receives Dy. CIT v. Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in lieu of the asset he parts with, viz., money or money's worth. The expression "full consideration" in the main part of section 12B(2

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

price bargained for by the parties to the sale, etc. The consideration for the transfer of the capital asset is what the transferor receives Dy. CIT v. Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in lieu of the asset he parts with, viz., money or money's worth. The expression "full consideration" in the main part of section 12B(2

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2) of\nsection 75 of Customs Act requires the amount of draw back to be\ndetermined on a consideration of all the circumstances prevalent in a\nparticular trade and also based on the facts situation relevant in\nrespect of each of various classes of goods imported. Basically, the\nsource of duty draw back receipt lies in section 75 of Customs

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

price index on purchase value, indexed cost comes to Rs 8.800/- and Rs.792,000/- respectively. But the appellant credited his account with amount of Rs.2.55,00,000/- instead of Rs 8,00,800/- without paying any tax Therefore the appellant was given final opportunity to explain as to why the amount of Rs 2.45.99,200/- (Rs 2

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

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the language of the section 263 it is apparently clear that opportunity of being heard has to be provided by Commissioner himself by way of issue of notice and show cause notices under section 263 of the Act and no other officer can perform this

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 54B is available for any land which is utilised for the purpose of agriculture for atleast two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place. In the instant case it is not disputed that the appellant was cultivating the said land. The appellant in his written submissions has produced the revenue record as proof of doing

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