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

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

section 92CA(2B) that assuming but not admitting that excess period of credit allowed by the assessee company on sales made to the subsidiary company is to be treated as an independent international transaction, Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer could not have taken cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the arm's length price u/s 92CA

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

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

section 92CA(2B) that assuming but not admitting that excess period of credit allowed by the assessee company on sales made to the subsidiary company is to be treated as an independent international transaction, Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer could not have taken cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the arm's length price u/s 92CA

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

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

section 92CA(2B) that assuming but not admitting that excess period of credit allowed by the assessee company on sales made to the subsidiary company is to be treated as an independent international transaction, Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer could not have taken cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the arm's length price u/s 92CA

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

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

section 92CA(2B) that assuming but not admitting that excess period of credit allowed by the assessee company on sales made to the subsidiary company is to be treated as an independent international transaction, Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer could not have taken cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the arm's length price u/s 92CA

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

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

section 92CA(2B) that assuming but not admitting that excess period of credit allowed by the assessee company on sales made to the subsidiary company is to be treated as an independent international transaction, Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer could not have taken cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the arm's length price u/s 92CA

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

section 80-IA(8) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. That the AO on directions of DRP has erred in confirming arm's length price of power [transferred

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

price and duty drawback. In view of the\ndecision of Supreme Court in the case of Keshavji Ravji & Co vs. CIT\nreported at 183 ITR 1 the duty drawback should be reduced from the\nvalue of purchases as a result of which the profits earned from exports\nwill only be in respect of value of sales credited to the Manufacturing

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153(4) is not applicable in case of the assessee as it is applicable to Transfer Pricing cases referred

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

transferred power. 4. That the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has erred in shifting the method from the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to the Cost Plus Method in the case of steam, and to the External Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method in the case of electricity, without considering the fact that the TNMM method adopted by the appellant

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.

4,33,54,756/- has not been reflected by you as your income. Due to the defects mentioned above, I am not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of your accounts as provided under section 145(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. You are, requested to please explain as to why the assessment under section 144 read with section