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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

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

C) No.17539 of 2016] on the provisions of section 80IB, affirming their view earlier taken in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC): 225 CTR (SC) 233 on the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the AO had rightly denied the deduction under section 10B of the Act to the assessee

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

4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of Co- generation Unit 1, specifically for the supply of electricity and steam to its non-specified unit, the Paper Unit. 5.3 The assessee has adopted the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) for determining the arm's length price for the transfer of power from the specified Co-generation

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

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

4. The intricate legal issue relating to lack of jurisdiction vested in Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 was not there in the knowledge of the petitioner appellant as well as his regular counsel Mr. Mahesh Chander Khungar, resulting need for filing of appeal against impugned order dated 29.03.2016 never cropped up in their mind, inter-alia

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

4. The intricate legal issue relating to lack of jurisdiction vested in Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 was not there in the knowledge of the petitioner appellant as well as his regular counsel Mr. Mahesh Chander Khungar, resulting need for filing of appeal against impugned order dated 29.03.2016 never cropped up in their mind, inter-alia

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

4 together and submitted that the AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 6,66,54,028/-by reducing the sales value of steam and power to Rs. 56,08,22,355, contrary to the audited results declared at Rs. 62,74,76,383 by wrongly reducing the distribution and transmission loss from the unit price

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

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

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

C Ranjit Ward -5(1), Amritsar Avenue, Amritsar [PAN: AACCB 8256C] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 14.07.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income

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

c) Slump sale may be of a single undertaking or even more than one undertaking. (d) The undertaking has to be transferred as a result of sale. (e) The consideration for transfer is a lump sum consideration. This consideration should be arrived at without assigning values to individual assets and liabilities. 35 A.Y.2015-16 The consideration may be discharged in cash

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

4. Suman Poddar Vs ITO Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26864 OF 2019, [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)- Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were bogus as company

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

4. Suman Poddar Vs ITO Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26864 OF 2019, [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)- Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order holding that assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) could not be allowed because share transactions 19 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were bogus as company

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