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 (ALP) of electricity generated (Biomass Power Projects) and transferred by the Captive Unit-1 to the non-specified paper manufacturing unit, @ 6.07 per unit are reasonable and acceptable, considering the fact that the same being less than the rate of Rs.8.75 per unit as prescribed by (General Tariff rate for Renewable Energy Technology based on biomass fuel), and there

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

57,03,640/- recorded in the registered sale deeds and also recorded in the books of account in terms of the registration deeds executed between the buyer and seller. He therefore trifurcated the alleged unaccounted purchase consideration amounting to Rs.9,37,33,930/- in three financial years under consideration in which the registration had actually taken place. Accordingly, the addition

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

57,03,640/- recorded in the registered sale deeds and also recorded in the books of account in terms of the registration deeds executed between the buyer and seller. He therefore trifurcated the alleged unaccounted purchase consideration amounting to Rs.9,37,33,930/- in three financial years under consideration in which the registration had actually taken place. Accordingly, the addition

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

57,03,640/- recorded in the registered sale deeds and also recorded in the books of account in terms of the registration deeds executed between the buyer and seller. He therefore trifurcated the alleged unaccounted purchase consideration amounting to Rs.9,37,33,930/- in three financial years under consideration in which the registration had actually taken place. Accordingly, the addition

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

57,56,000/- , being transferred through bank channel. 14. He further pointed out that both the seller and buyer has filed sworn affidavits in support of their respective declaration, that they have never seen the said loose sheet of paper earlier and have no knowledge about its existence and has not entered into any cash transaction over and above

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

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

57,053/- during the FY 2010-11 (relevant to the year under appeal ) to obtain purchase bills ( alleged as bogus ) in lieu of commission, without taking any physical delivery of goods, and the amount of Rs.51.57 lakhs , represents bogus purchase of the assessee, debited in profit and loss account to reduce profits. Reassessment proceedings commenced vide issue of notice

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

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

57,965 only on 28-9-1978 from the Government of Madhya Pradesh, which was deposited in the nationalized bank, it would be exempt from assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 as per the provisions of section 54E. It was submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had observed that as per section