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

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

Transfer Pricing Assessment, it is evident that the TPO has applied interest rate of 17.26% to compute Arms length interest on loan advanced to AE without any comparable, and thus the view of the AO based on the aforesaid TPO report would not be justified. The CIT(A) has relied on the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT

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

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

Transfer Pricing Assessment, it is evident that the TPO has applied interest rate of 17.26% to compute Arms length interest on loan advanced to AE without any comparable, and thus the view of the AO based on the aforesaid TPO report would not be justified. The CIT(A) has relied on the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT

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

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

Transfer Pricing Assessment, it is evident that the TPO has applied interest rate of 17.26% to compute Arms length interest on loan advanced to AE without any comparable, and thus the view of the AO based on the aforesaid TPO report would not be justified. The CIT(A) has relied on the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT

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

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

Transfer Pricing Assessment, it is evident that the TPO has applied interest rate of 17.26% to compute Arms length interest on loan advanced to AE without any comparable, and thus the view of the AO based on the aforesaid TPO report would not be justified. The CIT(A) has relied on the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT

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

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

Transfer Pricing Assessment, it is evident that the TPO has applied interest rate of 17.26% to compute Arms length interest on loan advanced to AE without any comparable, and thus the view of the AO based on the aforesaid TPO report would not be justified. The CIT(A) has relied on the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT

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

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

Transfer Pricing Assessment, it is evident that the TPO has applied interest rate of 17.26% to compute Arms length interest on loan advanced to AE without any comparable, and thus the view of the AO based on the aforesaid TPO report would not be justified. The CIT(A) has relied on the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT

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

34(1). That decision cannot, however, be of any assistance now for construing s. 273. The distinguishing feature which would be enough to hold that the provisions in s. 273 of the 1961 Act should not be construed in the same manner as s. 18A(9) of the 1922 Act, which was construed in Deviprasad's case (supra) is that

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

34(1). That decision cannot, however, be of any assistance now for construing s. 273. The distinguishing feature which would be enough to hold that the provisions in s. 273 of the 1961 Act should not be construed in the same manner as s. 18A(9) of the 1922 Act, which was construed in Deviprasad's case (supra) is that

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

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA.]” 34

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

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

34 kanals out of about 88 kanals piece of land for which per sq yard rate is hovering around Rs. 3900 per sq. yard, even though said piece of land for which price as per ikrarnamas is only 1400 per sq. yard in the same khasra. The detailed analysis with reference to the AR's contention on the issue

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

34 kanals out of about 88 kanals piece of land for which per sq yard rate is hovering around Rs. 3900 per sq. yard, even though said piece of land for which price as per ikrarnamas is only 1400 per sq. yard in the same khasra. The detailed analysis with reference to the AR's contention on the issue

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

34 kanals out of about 88 kanals piece of land for which per sq yard rate is hovering around Rs. 3900 per sq. yard, even though said piece of land for which price as per ikrarnamas is only 1400 per sq. yard in the same khasra. The detailed analysis with reference to the AR's contention on the issue

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

34 ITR 328 (Mad.) has held as under: "During relevant assessment year assessee exported and also sold onions in open market at controlled price However ITO taking view that assessee must have sold goods in open market at price higher than controlled price made certain addition in assessee's income - In coming to said conclusion, ITO relied upon transactions entered

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.

34,69,560/-. The appellant argued that the agency charges accrued only on the work done and not on mere receipts of deposits from various agencies. In the submission made before me the appellant has stated that no agency charges were levied on state plan and Central plan grants to it and no question of seeking agency charges from government

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.

34,69,560/-. The appellant argued that the agency charges accrued only on the work done and not on mere receipts of deposits from various agencies. In the submission made before me the appellant has stated that no agency charges were levied on state plan and Central plan grants to it and no question of seeking agency charges from government

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

34 A.Y.2015-16 “1. Whether the sale effected feel within the definition of slump sale as defined under section 2(42C). As per section 2(42C) of Income Tax Act, 1961, ‘slump sale’ means the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of the sale for a lump sum consideration without values being assigned to the individual assets

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