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 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

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

transfer of steam and the arm's length pricing is not consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover. A.O. erred in reducing the loss @ 20.50% which have already been considered by Assessee. Therefore, in this situation, and in our opinion, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this account cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Assessee

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

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. Condenser steam 64,79,600 No dispute 5. Generation of 5,66,09,114 No dispute electricity 38. From the above facts and circumstances, the calculation relied upon by the DRP/TPO is erroneous, as the loss has effectively been deducted twice. This action of reducing 20.5% losses again, when the same had already been considered, is contrary to facts

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

45. Reasons to believe are there. The reasons are based on tangible material. The return and account books of assessee had not undergone scrutiny at the time of assessment. The information is specific and not vague. A reasonable person can form an opinion on the basis of the material. The information received could form the basis of reason to believe

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

transfer pricing issues in the case of any person having international transactions or in case of a foreign company. It has been provided under sub-section (8) of section 144C that DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order of the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 36 Assessment Year: 2018-19 In a recent judgement

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

4) CIT Vs. Modi Industries Limited,(1994) 210 ITR 1 (Del)(FB) 5) CIT Vs. New India Maritime Agencies (1994) 207 ITR 392(Mad) 22. It has been consistently held by courts in the aforestated decisions that where a house property is occupied as residence by employees or its directors to 18 A.Y.2015-16 enable them to discharge their functions effectively

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

4 I.T.A. No. 287/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Schedule (AL in the Schedule of assets and liabilities) as per ITR, it was mandatory to disclose immovable property in the said Schedule as specified in the ITR. 6. Considering the disclosure in the return the AO presumed section 49 of the Act, 61, to be the charging section and after reducing

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

45,47,189/- and in the year under consideration assessee suffered STCG loss of Rs. 30,618/- and carried transaction of Rs. 61,97,37,626/-, which also proves beyond any doubt that assessee had not traded only in one script as alleged by the Ld. Assessing Officer. During the period under consideration assessee invested /traded in multiple scripts, which

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

45,47,189/- and in the year under consideration assessee suffered STCG loss of Rs. 30,618/- and carried transaction of Rs. 61,97,37,626/-, which also proves beyond any doubt that assessee had not traded only in one script as alleged by the Ld. Assessing Officer. During the period under consideration assessee invested /traded in multiple scripts, which

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

4 marla and the balance land of 12 kanal 18 marla) shown as “Gair mumkin” land and hence condition u/s 54B that land in questions is being used for agricultural purpose in the two years immediately preceding the date on which transfer took place, is not satisfied. 6.1 He further submitted that the land was sold in the shape

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR 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