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

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

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

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

section 144C(13) in consequence of directions of DRP u/s144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Assessing Officer (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

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

6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and placed that the claim of the assessee is not related to carbon credit, so, it is not covered u/s 115BBG or as exempted income. The ld. DR argued that the revenue had properly taken it as an income from business. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. AO para

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

2 of paper book)\nReply dated 08.02.2021\n4-6\n'6 It is observed that during the course of survey\nproceedings excess stock of Rs.49,98,000/- was found.\nPlease explain source of purchase of excess stock\nwith documentary evidence and explain why the sane\nshould not be added to your income as' unexplained\ninvestment in the form of stock

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

6. The facts are taken from ITA No. 671/Asr/2014 in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 as a lead case for discussion. The search u/s 132 of the I.T. Act 1961 was conducted on 07.04.2011 in the case of the appellant during which documents had been found and seized as per Annexure DNB-1, A-2, Pages

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

6. The facts are taken from ITA No. 671/Asr/2014 in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 as a lead case for discussion. The search u/s 132 of the I.T. Act 1961 was conducted on 07.04.2011 in the case of the appellant during which documents had been found and seized as per Annexure DNB-1, A-2, Pages

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

6. The facts are taken from ITA No. 671/Asr/2014 in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 as a lead case for discussion. The search u/s 132 of the I.T. Act 1961 was conducted on 07.04.2011 in the case of the appellant during which documents had been found and seized as per Annexure DNB-1, A-2, Pages

SHRI SUBASH CHANDER GUPTA & SONS,JAMMU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX , SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee anopportunity of being heardand after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify • From the language

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

6) of the Act 1961 dated 01.01.2020 which has\nemanated from the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3,\nSrinagar, (in short the AO) u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 27.12.2017 for A.Y. 2015-\n16.\n2.\nThe grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee as per memorandum of\nappeal are as under;\n1. That the learned

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

price index on purchase value, indexed cost comes to Rs 8.800/- and Rs.792,000/- respectively. But the appellant credited his account with amount of Rs.2.55,00,000/- instead of Rs 8,00,800/- without paying any tax Therefore the appellant was given final opportunity to explain as to why the amount of Rs 2.45.99,200/- (Rs 2

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

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

6 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO 7 I.T.A. No. 90/Asr/2017 Blue City Township & Colonizers v. ITO 8. Per contra, the defendant ld. DR has raised strong objection, to the legal ground raised by the assessee as being not justified and that the ground was not raised either during the assessment proceedings or the appellate proceedings before

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

section 54B is available for any land which is utilised for the purpose of agriculture for atleast two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place. In the instant case it is not disputed that the appellant was cultivating the said land. The appellant in his written submissions has produced the revenue record as proof of doing