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

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

27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act following the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgement in “Liberty India

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

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

27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act following the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgement in “Liberty India

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

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

27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act following the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgement in “Liberty India

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

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

27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act following the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgement in “Liberty India

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

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

27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act following the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgement in “Liberty India

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

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

27,636/- under the Duty Drawback u/s 10B of the Act after crediting the said receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act following the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgement in “Liberty India

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

transferred to paper unit, in that circumstances the arm length rate works out to 3,18,91,85,267.04. 26. He further referred to the TPO order for the Assessment Year 2017-18 wherein the department accepted the price of electricity at Rs. 6.87 per KWH (calculated as 43,60,95,829/ 6,34,63,979) and the position

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

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

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

27 of the order u/s 263 ) and he relied on various judicial decisions contained in the revision order u/s 263 of the Act dated 19/03/2024. 18. The Ld. AR of the assessee in rejoinder submitted that it is a settled law that the provisions of section 263 can only be invoked where both the condition vis 'prejudicial to the interest

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 at market rates prevailing in the locality to be fixed by the Revenue Minister on the recommendations of the concerned Dy. Commissioner except in cases where market rate of a certain piece of land is either less or more than that prevailing in the locality . In such cases market rates shall be fixed with concurrence of Finance Deptt

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 at market rates prevailing in the locality to be fixed by the Revenue Minister on the recommendations of the concerned Dy. Commissioner except in cases where market rate of a certain piece of land is either less or more than that prevailing in the locality . In such cases market rates shall be fixed with concurrence of Finance Deptt

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

Price Acquisition Shares Acquisition share during the year 1-12-2005 36 7,21,290 500 euros 878.64 33,388 31-08-2006 2 33,27,46,972 500 euros 31-03-2014 2323 7,23,24,900 500 euros 878.64 20,41,087 2361 The above table shows the adjustments made by the assesses to book both short term

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

price. Thus, the Panel is of the view that the assessee has wrongly claimed the Income from Sale of RECs/ESCs u/s 115BBG of Income Tax Act, I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 22 Assessment Year: 2018-19 1961. Income from sale of REC/ESCs is normal business income few the assessee and needs to be included in the business income and taxed at normal tale

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), JAMMU vs. ANITA KAPAHI, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 69, on basis of uncertified copy of an agreement to sell was not justified Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta reported in [2024] 160 taxmann.com 723 (Delhi) has held as under: Assessing Officer based on said information issued reopening notice and made addition

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

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