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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. That the AO failed to provide the benefit of the power factor of 0.92 for converting KVAH to KWH, which is a relevant factor in determining the correct price per unit. The failure to account for this power factor resulted in an incorrect adjustment, leading to an understatement of the correct price per unit for the transferred power

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

3), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 6DD of\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit\n(Rule 6DD) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of\nmanufacturing of dairy products Assessee filed return and Assessing Officer passed\nassessment order after making certain additions - Principal Commissioner observed

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

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

3) of 1922 Act he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all - Held, yes - Whether where, on request of Tribunal, departmental representative had produced certain material, Tribunal should have given an opportunity to assessee to rebut such material and 7 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year

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

3,00,000/- respectively By applying the 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

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

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

Section 139 (5) of the Act was filed before the Assessing Officer. We answer both the question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and in favour of assessee”. Ground No. 3 9. Ground No. 3, not pressed. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 32 Assessment Year: 2018-19 10. The ld. AR argued that the assessee paidcommission during financial year

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

section 147 of the act. Thus ground number 3 and 4 of the appellant are rejected. Adjudication on merits of the case: In ground nos. 5 to 15, the quantum addition is challenged by spreading in multiple grounds with consequential interest to addition u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, and hence adjudicated simultaneously in the following paras

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

transferred and registration of 3 Kanal 10 Marla was executed on 18.05.2018 for Rs.42 lacs and the balance property including the building & others are still in possession & power of M/s. S. Amar Singh Educational Charitable Trust. The electricity bill of the institute is still in the name of GNA-IMT which, as per the AR, justifies the claims