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

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

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

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

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

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

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

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

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

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

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

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

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

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

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

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

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

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

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

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

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

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

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

9) of the 1922 Act, which was construed in Deviprasad's case (supra) is that the words 'regular assessment' have now been specifically defined by the legislature. The 1922 Act did not define the words 'regular assessment'. In view of the definition of these words in s. 2(40) of the Act, under the accepted canons of construction, wherever those

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

9) of the 1922 Act, which was construed in Deviprasad's case (supra) is that the words 'regular assessment' have now been specifically defined by the legislature. The 1922 Act did not define the words 'regular assessment'. In view of the definition of these words in s. 2(40) of the Act, under the accepted canons of construction, wherever those

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

9)……………………………. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation— (i)………………………………….. To (xiii) shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment

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

9)……………………………. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation— (i)………………………………….. To (xiii) shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment

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

9)……………………………. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation— (i)………………………………….. To (xiii) shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment

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

9)……………………………. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation— (i)………………………………….. To (xiii) shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment

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

9)……………………………. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation— (i)………………………………….. To (xiii) shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment

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

9)……………………………. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation— (i)………………………………….. To (xiii) shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment

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

9)……………………………. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation— (i)………………………………….. To (xiii) shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment

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

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.

9,58,09,089/- pertains to Nazul Land. The appellant has argued that the Jammu Development Authority is not the owner of the Nazul lands and they are only doing development work on land and transferring such land on behalf of state government and the amount standing in the Nazul Account is payable to the State government. It is also